Do you remember, months ago, a certain issue on Irak?

The damned Irak-Afghanistan mess is not over at all, yet, and I myself am sick of it, really sick to the bones, but I think however it is worth citing a nice article on the matter. You can read it at
http://www.unknownnews.net/030903a-mz.html

"Where's my damn apology?
by Madeline Zane, Unknown News Sept. 3, 2003

Here's what I want to know: Where's my damn apology?? I remember before we invaded Iraq, people speaking out against the war got called all sorts of cruel, vicious, outrageous names. We were accused of hating America and loving terrorism and hastening the end of human civilization. You would think we had bombed the World Trade Center, the amount of hysteria and rage that was directed at anyone who wanted to actually discuss the facts about Iraq.
Well, guess what? Every single argument used against the war is now a generally accepted fact. There never was any connection between Saddam and Al-Qaeda, Iraqi weapons were never any real threat, and we've gotten ourselves into a multi-billion dollar quagmire with no end in sight. This is exactly what the war protesters were saying all along.
So how come no one seems to have noticed? It should be obvious even to people who only get their news from the mainstream media that we had good reasons for being against the war, and that we weren't just evil incarnate. But I'm still waiting for someone, anyone, to apologize for the name-calling and admit that we were right to speak out like we did.

Anyone? Any of you flag-wavers ready to say sorry? Hello? .... Is this thing on?? "

I hear you! I wouldn't sit around holding my breath if I were you, though. I thought the country was nutty for electing Shrub in the first place; now I just scratch my head and wonder when folks will notice not ONLY the mess the war was, is, and will be, but the mess this country is in!

What's the problem Cristobo? Oh boy, the Madridman is going to love this topic being reopened.

That's it. Stir the pot, why don'tcha?

Hi Cristobo,

In the midst of the horrible and stagnant situation in Iraq I would hope that people carry a more mature and progressive mindset rather than demand apologies and flaunt a childish 'I told you so' attitude. With the talent of composition and the power of the internet at her hands I would hope Madeline could write something more contributive to the collective human intellect.

[edit: this related to the previous message before it was edited, it said something like "the rest of the countries were not helping to reconstruct Irak]

Why should they?

They didn't destroy and invade the country. They ARE NOT invading the country now, taking their oil, establishing puppet governments, ...

I hope that most european countries won't help with a dime or a man. Now that the USA government of Mr Bash has bitten more than it can swallow, let the USA bleed slowly in soldiers lifes and money for what they have done to a defenceless country.

I am NOT against the USA, but I am ABSOLUTELY against the way USA understands foreign relationships. This has became an empire, and we don't want to be the servants.

But I believe one has to pay for his responsabilities. The USA did not count with Europe, or the UN, so they cannot claim for help of any of them. If my government gives an euro or sends one more man, I'll be in the streets protesting again.

Cristobo: Not all americans were in favour of the war, and spanish were not supporting Aznar (right?). Don't ask for apologies to the forum, for you or the lady, cause many could be on the peace's side. Besides, warmongers should apologize mainly (and do something else, like learning and having shame of themseves) to the widows and the ruined, in Irak.

Ignacio,

I fully understand that you may find giving money and manpower to help the situation in Iraq hard to swallow. No one wants to clean up another person's mess. However, I think there comes a time when ignorance and differences must be shedded and people should come together for the good. If you don't feel that way then I'm sorry.

Mike

First, it's the USA who should clean the mess they did.

Then, if help was given by all of us, then the USA should not have the control any more. We're not giving money for Mr. Bash imperialist plans. More, after how he uses the word allies, in his lips it sounds like the roman legions "auxilia", a kind of troops that the minor nations HAD to send at the command of Rome to help in Rome's wars.

An then, there are many many places in the world where urgent help is needed, in Africa, South America and even Asia, beginning by Cuba. Why not helping them instead? Because the Mr. Bash prefers so? He could give an example on what we should do, by helping another country that has suffered NAm foreign policy first: Cuba.

Ignacio,

You use the word 'if'. That is my point. If help was given. So far I have not seen anything proposed. I do not see propositions being made to the U.S. I see the U.S. making resolutions and getting rejected. That is fine reject them all. However, I don't think the U.S. should be the only catalyst here. If they really care then they should propose a plan of their own. If the U.S. rejects that then at least there was an attempt. FINE. A country is in a very critical state. For others to sit back and wait for the perfect plan to fall into place is naive. If people care about helping you will make attempts and efforts one way or another.

There is no proposals because genuine positions are too apart. The USA have stated clearly that thay want all the control on Irak.

I would be for not helping the USA with soldiers even if they shared the control, maybe I would agree to help independent ONGs or Iraki organizations.

But Bush and his team have clealy said that there is nothing to negotiate in that aspect.

I prefer that Bush government sinks, while the truth steadily arises, the Budget expenses rockets, and invading soldiers die.

Let´s not forget that Bush made this so called war (the other side didn't stand a chance) to improve popularity in the USA, just like his dad did. The world and the American people must show him that war crimes don't pay.

The problem is not only Irak. Irak is only the last of USA agressions all over the world. When a beserker is free, my first priority would be stoping him before he kills somebody else. Then help the injured, and bury the corpses. Else, he would never be stopped and the number of corpses would increase more and more.

Bush needs to learn this lesson or this will happen again (Iran, Jordan, ...?), and part of the N.Am. people need the Vietnam lesson be refreshed.

Afterwards, when the bezerker is stopped and waiting for his trial, we can try to mend this and the rest of the many problems the world has. Irak is NOT the only country in the world where there is hunger, although it is nowadays more sensible and strategical for this USA government.

Sadly, I am afrad that France and Germany are been bullyed so blatantly that they may agree soon, however. Spanish stupid puppet government is eager to do so, but they know they won`t win next elections if they do (in one year and some months).

Your reason for the staunch U.S. stance is a poor excuse for countries not to come forward and try. If other countries want to be considered equal then they have to act like it. I find it hard to believe that certain Western powers cannot come forward and propose something.

You say you want Bush to learn his lesson. You forget that when Bush is out of the White House, that lesson won't matter anymore. It may or may not be on his conscience. It will be just another chapter in American History. However, the Iraquis who suffer now because of the lack of resources and the lack of those who are not willing to help will suffer the consequences and they will remember and will retain lasting effects. As far as individual countries providing assistance, I think it would be more prudent if the EU were to contribute resources as a whole. Perhaps humanitarian aid given to U.S. or UN soldiers to distribute. After all, the countries you stated, France, Germany and Spain have enough minor problems they need to focus on without being the specific bringer of assistance to Iraq.

Prior to and at the onset of the war, the American people were frustrated, not knowing what to do, who to listen to and who to believe. The American people does not trust the UN. The country was literally torn in half. The media tells the story, the President says it's necessary, and all other sources are met with suspicion. With Sadaam's track record of non-compliance with the UN how was he believable to anyone? If anyone is to blame for the turmoil in Iraq it's Sadaam. He new the consequences getting into a war with the US. I really don't think he felt that the Americans could actually bring down his government, but he knew he would have a nasty war on his hands.

When a spider bites you, what do you do? You squash it; that's what the US did with Sadaam. Was it the right thing to invade Iraq? In my opinion...No! But the whole blame should not rest on the US government alone. The rest of the world was dragging it's feet regarding the situation when it should have demanded action from Sadaam or insist in his stepping down as leader. Unfortunately the UN doesn't have the [censored] to do anything unless it's made to respond...i.e. North Korea, Africa, India & Pakistan, Israel and Palistine, etc. etc. etc.

Of course every country has the right to govern itself. So, what do we need the UN for, to make pretty speeches and resolutions and to tell wayward countries that they're misbehaving? Puhleeese!!!

I know its more than that, and that these problems will not be resolved by any manmade organization. What's tiresome is all the bullsh*t that nations fling at each other without a proper resolution to the matter until something like this war has to happen!

NOBODY IN THE US WANTED IT, EVEN THOSE THAT SUPPORTED IT DIDN'T REALLY WANT IT! And those that stupidly said they did are ignorant! I had two nephews that went to Iraq, they just recently returned, unharmed. The soldiers don't want to be there either, but it's their duty and it's their blood that is being spilled. I didn't like Ignacio's comment to "let the USA bleed slowly in soldiers lifes." Well, it's not your countrymen's lives lost. Should we here in the US care when ETA bombs kill innocent people, soldiers or politicans in the streets of Madrid? Why should our soldiers be sent out to South America, Asia or Liberia? When our soldiers were sent to Somalia and were killed protecting the grain that was sent to FEED THE HUNGRY rather than having it stolen by the warlords to feed their soldiers, who cared? The rest of the world? Hell No! So, why should anymore American soldiers go into any other country to die for ungrateful people? Americans wear their heart and compassion on their sleeves. I guess we have to learn to become callous like the rest of the world! But then again, we've only been around for 227 years...

"I well know, O Jah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step."
Jeremiah 10:23

Madridman, I know that this is a site about tourism, and the least suitable to deal about the Irak issue. If someone can address me to a more suitable message board where I can discuss it with people from around the world, I will be very grateful. So far, I have attempted it at the Young Republicans from S.Francisco, but their forum is almost empty.
If you eventually decided to lock this thread, I would be the last one to complain.
Mikey
You know what? I am tired of being "mature" and "reasonable". Me, and thousands like me, have spent months talking reasonable, boring, TRUE facts instead of the horror tale about "bogey man" Hussein and his Star of Death plan to blast away Aldera-Ann. What did we get in turn? Being harassed, labelled or insulted. Do you know what was the response of a pro-war person in this mb, when forced to face awkward facts about the war? "All that is downright garbage".
Do you know what is the funniest thing of all? If all this damned thing started again, nothing would change at all. You jingoists would make exactly the same mistakes as one year ago, and would believe the same stinky lies. You said peace activists were "against our troops" and pro-war were in fact "supporters of our troops". Now go and tell your troopers how come their "supporters" have sent them 10 000 miles away, to die at a rate of 2 per day in a barren wasteland.
It takes effrontery to claim "matureness" to those who have suffered the results from the most amazing explosion of hysteria, jingoism and paranoia ever seen in a civilized country since the Chinese Cultural Revolution.
Don`t ask us for solutions, or mature contributions to the issue, we have been providing them to you for the last twelve months and you haven`t listened a word. You pro-war supporters got entangled here, now get out for yourselves.

It really saddens me to read your post.

First of all, I didn't address you directly (or jeer). My postings have nothing to do with Jingoism. I was and still am against the war. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, NO ONE LISTENED TO ME EITHER!! However, I realize that what's done is done and we must look past our pride and vanity to help others out. If I told myself 'well since none of these war-supporters listened to me, to hell with them they can clean up their own mess' I don't think I could live with myself. How can you honestly say this ?

"Don`t ask us for solutions, or mature contributions to the issue, we have been providing them to you for the last twelve months and you haven`t listened a word. You pro-war supporters got entangled here, now get out for yourselves"

What kind of condescending, snide, elitist claim is that? Do you think you and your opinion are so valuable that if not heeded you can't be bothered? Do you think you are above anyone else or that this situation is below you?? You're worth just as much as the war-supporters and the poverty stricken Iraquis. You claim to have provided solutions and maturity throughout. So since no one listened to you you're going to go cry and complain and demand apologies rather than take it like an adult and still want to help and contribute?! Give me a break. You're going to totally shrug your shoulders and say I told you so? Meanwhile a nation that needs everyone's help is in turmoil. That is the most ignorant and selfish thing I have ever read. I am utterly disgusted to read your opinion. People know the war was wrong but it's time to suck it up. I'm sorry if no one listening to you jilted your feelings.

Mickey, I cannot say anything else to the words I wrote before. I think it's incredibly surprising that:

1- The USA doesn't count with the allies to break, but they want to count with them to mend!

2- The USA wants us to do so, with no control on our men and/or money!

And then, I also think that:

3- The USA needs another cure to learn to be humble, cause they have forgotten too soon the Viet-Nam.

4- There are plenty of other countries who are in the same or worse situation than Irak, that could be helped. We needn't help Irak just because it's the USA major problem now. There are a lot of suffering countries along the world.

Osomajor:

I am surprised by what you say. By now, it should seem that it's perfectly clear for all, that Al Quaeda has no relation with Saddam at all. Yes, there were a couple of bases of connected groups (Ansar al Islam) in the kurdish area (used by Saddam to disturb kurdish operations, since Irak's aviation was banned from the area, but there is Al Quaeda activities in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, and many other countries (don't forget Spain, where lots of preparations for the towers disaster were planned and made), and, however, these countries are not anti-american or pro-terrorists.

It has never been proved any Al Quaeda base or Al Quaeda anything in Irak, same as there was any evidence of chemical weapons, nuclear warheads or any of the many many lies said.

About the spider's bite: Yes, but as the USA government couldn't find the spider, because it run and hide fast, they killed the parrot instead (that ugly parrot was a nuisance awakening you every morning half an hour before the clock rang).

The USA Government has channelized the peoples' fair fury for the Towers' terrorist act towards a weakened country in the Middle East that NOW had done nothing (they were punished for what they did, and they couldn't buy weapons ¡For ten years or more! Do you know what this means regarding weapons? Ammunition is depleted (or whatever the word is ) and the weapons obsolete. They had no aviation, scarcely some middle range missiles, the tanks that worked couldn't do anything against the USA new ones, ... A massacre.

A soldier could only look at the sky and see the planes that were going to kill him with no hope in own aviation or missiles. Soldiers were as defenceless as civilians.

As for the rest of the world and the UN, we did nothing because there was nothing to do, in spite of the USA bullying us. As it`s now been proved, all the USA government reasons for the war were lies, so it was us who were right.

We wanted a trial, not a lynch, which is what the USA did. Unfortunately when Lynch law is applied, more innocent than guilty people die, in the hands of mobs.

Of course, every country has the right to govern themselves, as humans too, but we live in a community, and this community requires that, if somebody breaks the rules, it must be punished by the rest (i.e.: jail). We used to see the USA as the gunman we had hired to be the sheriff, now we see he's became a desperado outlaw, and we can't do anything to stop him from killing, we're peaceful and he's too fast with guns.

I am glad that your nephews are alright. I care for the american soldiers as much as I cared for Iraki defenceless "soldier" and civilians who were killed by american bombs, being innocent.

To me, every life is precious, but we have to look into a wider scenary. The Viet Nam war made the USA notice that their agressive imperialist policy had a cost. Now, the lesson has been forgotten, and the masses have been confused by the US media, who are also constricted by the fact that they have to support war or be considered anti-american. Thus, every opposition is silenced as effectively as in a dictatorship.

The only stop for this craze impulsed by the US Government were the media, but the media could only critisize the minimum or be called traitor. This made people be misleaded (or fooled), and support the Government position and war.

And it all begins again, a vicious circle! Only the truth (mainly through the allied Media- British) is bringing some light to the matter.

And, if there was no reason for this attack, the world is slowly realising that the true reason for the war and invasion of Irak was the economic interest of the N.Am. oil firms in the Iraki oil, which was not in their hands, yet.

In fact, many persons of the US Govenment have been closely related, at the highest levels, with major N.Am. oil companies, starting by Mr. G.W. Bush and Halliburton, (the same firm that's getting contracts of tenths and hundreds of dolars in Irak from the US Government without open competition, what has been shown by their rivals-not by unfriendly countries or anything)Condoleeza Rice and many others highest level officials .

Now every country is putting his hands to cover his *ss because a desperado is free in the streets and we don't know whose wife or house will he want ot get by killing us.

When a country receives a lesson that must last for years, that lesson must be painful, as painful was the reason that caused it. The USA have committed a terrible mistake in Irak, but to call it a terrible mistake is not enough. If you kill an innocent by mistake, you go to jail. If you didn't there would be no safety in the streets because everybody could kill anybody who was a "suspect" of anything.

Now, the lesson that the USA must learn is that they cannot invade countries as they like and without the international support, and this lesson is going to be sour, just as it was for the poor iraki dead, widows, mutilated, blind, orphans and unemployed that there are because of the USA. It´s sour, but it´s fair.

We took our lesson 100+ years ago in Cuba. The thousands of deaths made our mentality change from an imperialist country to a country that cared only on his bussiness, unless it was for helping people under the UN PEACE missions. By the way, nothing to object to the US help under the uN nations along with many other countries in many other missions.

That's why we didn't fight Morocco for our colony at Sahara and we gave peacefully the independence to Guinea Ecuatorial.

There is no reason why peasants should die to defend economic interests of corporations while invading foreign countiers that no longer are able to harm. A soldier joins the army for many reasons, but mainly to defend your country, not to invade or attack others. Because of this, most agressive wars are disguised as defensive ones, with the strangest reasons, like this.

I hope the USA people, who "controls" (at least once each four years-the vote day, afterwards politicians do as they like) the most powerful army and economy in the world, can see the lies and the unfairness of the US Government policy.

Unless they do, they'll force nations to arm again, because nuclear disarm agreements were mada to live in peace, but it's obvious now that the USA want the Pax Romana (the peace of the Empire), where they order and the rest obbey. To prevent this, it seems that only being strong in weapons is effective. Example: North Korea, they have nukes (and they don't have valuable resources to steal) so the USA doesn't bother them

Ignacio,

"4- There are plenty of other countries who are in the same or worse situation than Irak, that could be helped. We needn't help Irak just because it's the USA major problem now. There are a lot of suffering countries along the world."

Iraq isn't just the US's problem. It's not as if the US spilled a giant glass of milk and now we want help to clean it up. There are living people here. To say it's just a problem demeans the Iraqi poeple and all they're going through. All should be compelled to help out. Maybe I expect to much dignity from fellow man.

As this topic is getting rather circular in its postings this is my last message.

Ignacio...for the most part I agree with you.

Mikey...you're right, let's tie a knot on this thread and cut it off!

If one is looking for an apology for the conflict in Iraq, one should start with the US Clinton administration and the intelligence services of Spain, France, Germany, Russia, Great Britain, China, India, Israel, Turkey, Canada, Italy and Australia, all of whom unequivocally concluded that the Hussein regime in Iraq had chemical and biological weapons, was seeking more, and wanted to develop nuclear weapons at the earliest possible moment. So what happened to them? According to the same sources, likely moved out of the country in the weeks before the war, probably to Syria and Lebanon. Also, there is no way any objective observer can deny that Hussein’s regime was actively involved in supporting Islamo-Fascist jihadism and was a fellow traveler of al-Queda and its allies.

That being said, I’d like to thank Ignacio for his comments along the line of ‘let America bleed’ as he lays bare the feelings of the people of ‘Eurabia’: the desire for American blood to be spilled. That American pain means continued misery for the people of Iraq means little to Ignacio and his ilk, but it is to be expected. The leading members of the Eurabian Union, France and Germany, cared not a whit for the fate of Iraqis under the Hussein regime, and they do not care about them now. It is interesting how deeply committed France and Germany, along with tens of thousands of Eurabian citizens were to keeping Hussein as the overlord of the Iraqi slave-state. Now that his regime, one of the bloodiest and most outrageous of the modern era, has been deposed, the people of Eurabia show almost no concern for the well-being of the shell-shocked and brutalized slaves of Hussein’s killing fields. But this is nothing new. In the 1991 Gulf war it was the ‘Coalition’ partners of Eurabia, Russia and the Arab world that forbade America from deposing Hussein and supporting the popular uprisings against him lest the popular support of these ‘partners’ vanish.

But then again, what popular support would America ever enjoy when the interests of TotalFinaElf (whose vice-chairman, by the way, is the brother-in law of Canada’s Quebec-born prime minister. Any wonder for the complete abandonment of America by its northern ‘ally’?) and other French and Russian conglomerates and weapons manufacturers are threatened. And how could America ever hope to forge a solid alliance with the nations of Eurabia against the likes of Saddam Hussein. Just look at the comments of this thread, and it is clear that the ‘international community’ wouldn’t support America against Satan himself. Oh, I’m sorry, America IS Satan to the majority of the Eurabian and Muslim nations.

Take a look at the United Nations, with major committees headed by Libya and Cuba, and its roll call stocked with dozens and dozens of petty, tyrannical and blood-soaked regimes and tell me again why American action without the ‘blessing’ of this craven and self-serving bureaucracy is somehow immoral or against international law. It is neither. The overwhelming attitude is that America was ‘wrong’ and the UN, et. al. was ‘right’. That the unconditional surrender of the UN was in any way a contributing factor to the war in Iraq is simply unthinkable. Despite the undisputed fact that the Iraqi regime was in flagrant violation of eighteen UN resolutions, plus the cease-fire (NOT a ‘peace treaty’) that ended the ’91 conflict, the UN absolutely refused to act, except in the demand from some quarters that the sanctions placed upon Iraq be ended since they (and not the despicable Hussein regime) were responsible for the suffering of the Iraqi people.

Had the Eurabian Union, Russia and the UN stood solidly behind American threats of action against Hussein, had Hussein seen that there was no hope of splitting the alliance and of extracting a compromise ‘solution’ that would have left him in power, it is quite conceivable that no war would have been necessary. Hussein might very well have abdicated or been forced from the country. But France, Germany and Russia thought it was more important to harangue and humiliate the US at the United Nations than to see Hussein forced into submitting without a fight. In this endeavor they were supported by thousands of marchers from the Eurabian nations, who made a point of also blaming America for every other international and social ill that they could think of.

It is quite clear that the nations of Europe are surrendering to Islamo-fascism, lest they incur the wrath of their nascent and expanding Muslim populations. Muslim and Arab terror organizations have operated at will across Europe (from Hamburg to Madrid to Finsbury Park to Barcelona to the World Trade Center) for many years. For years Europeans have drawn a distinction between Hamas the bus-bombers and Hamas the ‘social welfare organization’, as if one could draw distinctions between the Nazi Brown-Shirts of ‘kristalnacht’ and Nazi soup-kitchens. Of course, most nations of Europe were quite willing to cooperate with this last murderous fascist movement, including Spain. Europe will do anything to avoid having to face danger or responsibility for what it hath wrought.

Thus, one must refer to the Eurabian Union and Eurabia, as an ever-growing Muslim and Arab immigrant population takes over the demographically vanishing peoples of Europe, and Eurabian governments and people respond accordingly.

Thank you, thank you Ignacio for clearly stating the sentiment of so many of your Eurabian compatriots: American blood is what you thirst for above and beyond all else. It is a perfect example of what the United States must expect from the people of Eurabia from now on.

Kurt, I have neither the time nor the inclination to get into a lengthy debate with you on the European reaction to our involvement in Iraq. I think getting into a war is a little like getting married in that when friends and family warn you to think it over, they may know something you don't! Europe has suffered many more wars than we have, and I'd like to think that the reaction of European countries to involvement in war stems from the horrors they experienced. Our involvement has been largely on foreign soil; theirs was up close and personal. We have been blessed in never having had to experience world war on our land. In addition, what we do to alienate people strikes at them too. Those who go after Americans wind up attacking people of other countries who happen to be near us. The danger for Europeans is much greater than for us...they are, after all, so much closer to the nations in question than we are.

Our European friends have rational and intelligent reasons for opposing the war, and the fact that Bush wants their help but insists again on maintaining control is not doing anything to help. If we are going to have peace in this world we are going to all have to put our egos aside and look out for one another and not just ourselves. So much of what has caused this problem with the Moslem world has come of our not understanding other cultures nor valuing their beliefs and customs. Blame throwing won't help...we need to look for sensible solutions. A big chunk of what we as a nation must do involves serious fence mending with our allies and friends. We have enough enemies as it is...we sure as hell don't need to make new ones!

Kurt said:
“there is no way any objective observer can deny that Hussein’s regime was actively involved in supporting Islamo-Fascist jihadism and was a fellow traveler of al-Queda and its allies”

Sure, and no way any objective observer can deny that Mermaids came from outer space to build Mexican pyramids...maybe the mermaids along with brownies have taken the massive destruction weapons, back to Mars. I`ll tune on Fox news tonight and find out. Sure Powell and his misterious-unknown-sources have a clue on the matter.

Kurt, you have opened my eyes. So the point is, Eurabians are silly and bad, and hate Amerisraelis. I am right, aren`t I? Just a minute, I am right now receiving through my fax a couple million bucks from ELF, to reward my opinions against war.
I am being IRONICAL, Kurt. I am kidding. OK? Do you know why? Have you got a clue why I don`t even bother to argue with you?
Well, because it is not worth. When someone (you) has received a brain-washing, it is plain STUPID trying to use reason. Reason on a washed brain is like water on a raincoat: it simply slides over it. And I`ll prove it right now:
Look at the first post of this thread. It has been written by one of your countrywomen, Kurt. The author is an Amerisraeli. So all your passional speech about hate-filled Eurabians is just chicken feed. But sure this simple fact doesn`t mind you at all. Am I wrong?

Cristobo,

Please explain something to me that I honestly do not understand. How could anyone living in Spain, that historically has had its own problems with the Arabs, not have sympathy when we here in the U.S. are currently having our own problems with the Arabs? Have you forgotten your history so soon? Maybe I'm just assuming that you are a Spaniard? But I know that many Spaniards also protest the war in Iraq.
To read your posts, one comes away with the feeling that you are obsessed with the political aspect of the war. Don't you also feel that there are some cultural aspects of this war. What I mean is, don't you feel this war is at least partly a cultural clash between Western civilizations and the Arab world?
I, like you, love politics. But this war wasn't started just because our "evil" American president just decided to win the next election by starting a war.
By the way, good job Kurt.

Gazpacho
I would never define myself as “Spanish”, it is a label I don`t feel at all identified with, but yes, I am a Spanish subject. I live in a country where it is regarded as quite “cool” to be fond of Islamic and African cultures. It is said to be very “enrichening”, and the word that cool people most like is “mestizaje”, “miscenagation”.
Well I am not that way. I don`t like Moslems, I don`t like those dusty, underdeveloped, tyrannical and corrupted countries where a bunch of self-righteous clergymen control what people say, think or do. I like Europe, I think our culture is “rich” enough without need of being enrichened with Islamic influence. I like our political tradition, I enjoy civil rights and I think moslems can teach us nothing at all.
But all the former is irrelevant. I am sure Moslems don`t need my approval to live as they like to do. As long as they respect me, and stay at home, I have nothing against them. My theory is, just leave them alone and things will go on as peacefully as ever!
If you ask me yeah, I guess terrorism is a problem. I guess I don`t like Arab tyrants. But what do you want to do? Should we invade all the countries where terrorists are strong?

Kenya is a “friendly” and “almost democratic” country, but apparently terrorists are powerful there; there have been several bloody terrorist attacks in the area, in recent years. It would be stupid and useless to invade Kenya, Tanzania, Indonesia (remember the Bali attack) because of their unwillingly harbouring terrorists. Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are pro-western regimes, which have been closely under American survey for the last fifty years. However, they are also Islamic countries, where human rights are violated in the worst possible way every minute. They harbour and actively support Islamic terrorism (includind those of 9-11-2001). Let`s invade them, too?

Just the war and aftermath period in Irak may be enough to lead America into recession. And should the US along with Europe start a row of endless wars against some billion and a half people? Should we start WWIII? That is plain nonsense.

You can quest for terrorists if you like, you can offer a reward for Saddam and Osama, but you can`t say that the key problem today is terrorism, because it is NOT. Starting wars will bring only more wars. So far, neither Afghanistan nor Irak have reached the least political stability, on the contrary they are close to anarchy and civil war. As long as the US focus on wasting $ billions of wars, they will be wasting a precious time (and economic resources) which could be being used to solve what real problems are today: environment and underdevelopment.

Cristobo,

Thanks for a very good answer. Unfortunately, the Arabs (that is Arab terrorist) did not stay home and respect us in our (the U.S's) case. If they did, then I would agree with you to leave them alone to their own way of life.
As I've said before, I really wish our government would have a post-victory plan before we go to war. What I see going on in Afghanistan and Iraq is what is known to this former military personel as a cluster. This administration's foreign policy is way too socialistic from my point of view. Instead of trying so hard not to step on anyones toes in the region, and constantly having to demonstrate our sense of fairness and justice to the rest of the world, we should be occupying conquered territory and forcing them to adopt our way of life. Who cares about the opinion of other countries? And as for the people of Iraq, could they hate us any worse?
I still feel the war was necessary to remove any doubt in our strength as a nation. By now our enemies should understand that when anyone steps on American soil, they are stepping on sacred ground. Ground our forefathers won with their blood. The Arabs don't even know the meaning of Jihad until they come here intending to do us, a free people, harm. It's a shame that so many innocent Arab people must die in our demonstration of strength, but since the war, I haven't seen to many of their government sponsored demonstrations in which they are shouting "death to America".
As for this war being economically disastrous, you are right. My solution would be to compensate ourselve with their oil. Yes, corporate America will turn a profit by reselling the oil to the U.S. tax payers. That's the price of our 'no free lunch' world.

Kurt:

It seems that you have VERY bad sources of information or want to confuse readers. I don't know about other countries, but in the theree ones that had the Azores meeting, USA, Great Britain and Spain, it is now well known that:

-In Britain, there is a process on, where it has been uncovered that the Blair Government included false informations (the 45' Saddam response with ABQ weapons), and exagerated greatly the magnitude of the threat, to encourage people's feelings for war. That's why Blair's popularity has reached a low, in spite of his many positive actions in the other areas of actuaction.

-Spanish government recently affirmed (after being chased by press and PSOE) that they obtain that information from supposed UN files!!! In fact it's obvious that the UN did NOT any report regarding the Saddam military attack/response capability but on his having possibilities to acquire/develop nukes or other mass killing weapons. And the resutl were not concluyent thanks to Bush's war starting before they ended. Plus, Blix was very doubtful as he has said after he has retired and was free to talk. It happens that he had reasons to doubt, more time would have result in seeing that the country was mass weapons free, and Bush plans to enrich oilo companies would be over.

- In the USA, CIA has declared that they felt very under pressure by the frequent visits of (I think it was) Mr. Rumsfeld, asking wether they had found by then the evidence he wanted was "found". Hence, the "creativity" of the information, among others, of the false information that Saddam had bought Uranium in Africa.

So, it seems that, form the 3 ones I know, who are the impulsors of the war, 3 were wrong (or lied to their people to support war).

Syria and Lebannon are NOT satellites of Saddam, and DID NOT have to follow Saddam hosting those weapons. May I remind you what happened with the remains of the Iraki air force in the 1st gulf war? They send them to Iran to preserve them from destruction in american hands, but Iran stayed them and jailed the pilots. SO, what's the sense of Saddam sending weapons to others?(who, by the way, feeled very tense with his formerly agressive neighbour).

What no objective observer can deny is that more than one hundred thousand + invading soldiers, the CIA, MI5 and others couldn't find a PROOF supporting the supposed Al-quaida/Saddam connection. In fact, Saddam's regime is well known for being laicist, for which he had a lot of problems with islamic factions, but which was the only way that a country with two main muslim factions, who consider the other heretic: sunni an shii, can be ruled.

Thank you for not considering me of your ilk , but a different one. As for the 'Eurabia' name, I will not make any comments, our History and past political actions speak for us. The fact that we don't follow US government warmongers, does not tear us apart from West, only pushes the USA to the Far West , and Bush's politics resemble a lot the Hitler's invading policies. Imperialism.

As for the TotalFinaElf matter, I don't know if that Canadian guy is who you say he is, but I'll swallow it. However, what are you condemning? Trade relations?

Because to many of us, when we lost markets abroad, we were told that it was because the USA were more competitive. Now we send better offers, get a deal through the markets laws, and then
the USA sends their troopers, kills some tenths of thousands and states a new puppet government and the agreements are over. Good bussiness, no?

Sounds like dirty tricks. But these dirty tricks include killing irakis AND american soldiers for some corporations to earn more.

About the USA in the UN: DO YOU think YOUR country and those that at that moment are allied with it are always the TRUTHHOLDERS? I Don't think so. The USA has a lot more power in the UN that the deserved, starting by having a permanent member in the Executive Council, plus a Veto, just like the other 4, Which is unfair in both cases, AND also has political, economical and militar power to bully most of the rest most of the other times, and that's exactly what they do.

So, don't complain and cry because once you were not winning, because the UN are not meant to be subsidiary to the USA, but an organization that's is above the country because of the political decision of all the signatary countries (including the USA).

As for staying together and forcing Saddam out of IRAK, you are making political-fiction, in your dreams anything can happen, but what we know is that Saddam was not a menace and that the country has been destroyed, and that's a fact.

If you knew some politics, you'd know that islamo-fascist is an imposible word, as much as islamo-jew, because fascists hated and despiced Arabs (remember Berlusconi, so close to Bushs plans, he is praising Mussolini these days, and saying M. sent jews "on holidays to a cam" only ).

The fact that, in Europe, we tend to consider countries able to self-govern and that Bush-Blair-Aznar don't, doesn't make us Arabs at all. Europe's position has always been trying to mediate between Israelis and palestinians to abide UN resolutions regarding Israel, for example, whereas the USA has always supported Israel while they violated them repetidly.

By the way, Israel was not invaded by any country for violating so many UN resolutions, being a Terrorist State (assesinating its own citizens of palestinian origin), without a trial or anything, ..., and for so many blatant crimes. Even being it so, the EU haven't been against that bloody regime either. Only long-lasting peace preservation was important as a goal. A goal now almost impossible thanks to US annual gifts in cash to Israel, and in making it a nuclear power, unstable and bloody as its behaviour is.

Let´s invade israel! As bloody as Irak, But this time, they truthfully have nukes! Wasn't this the reason for the war? Clearing ruthless bloody regimes with nukes and the like?

Europeans countries are not policial states, such as what the USA is becoming right now, with people (some their own citizens) in jail for months without a trial, that's why terrorists are freer, just as the rest of us. But we also suffer terrorism (some islamic) in our territory, and we fight it with as many weapons we have.

Unfortunately we haven't yet the mind-reading device needed to guess that some groups of five people scattered along Europe were planning to do the usual terrorist action consisting on smashing some planes on skyscrappers. If we had known that, we would have done something about that.

But, again, don't try to move the discussion to other matter, for, again, no relation has been found at all between Al-Quaida and Irak.

As for the Two Hamas: There are not two Hamases. There is Hamas, which is a terrorist group (Have the Israelis left another way? They don't have an army and can't have it, and if they had, they wouldn't have the USA tech they have got and the nukes), and there are a number of humanitary organizations and ONG's most of which are independent and care of population welfare in those super-poor countries that have been unfairly been pursued economically, politically and judicially by the USA, and the EU countries as far as the fear for the USA impulsed them to.

I don't have thirst for american blood, but I firmly believe that, unless this war is very costly to America in lifes and/or money, we will have more and more innocent countries invaded, ruined, contamined (with uramium loaded projectiles), people (including "soldiers") assesinated defenceless by american bombers, children born dead or handicapped by exposition to american weapons radiation, and so on. Remember, after Irak, Bush was about to invade Jordan, accusing them of hosting Saddam and the rest, of the hosting weapons lie, and of border attacks.

The americans are the only ones who can stop the America war machine, that's why they have to learn again the lesson of life cost, which is only one hundreth of the ones they have caused, and the recession menace that the cost of this nonsense war is bringing upon their country, not to support any warmonger anymore.

O my God!

Gazpacho, I hope ( with not much confidence) that you are making a joke here:

This administration's foreign policy is way too socialistic from my point of view. Instead of trying so hard not to step on anyones toes in the region, and constantly having to demonstrate our sense of fairness and justice to the rest of the world, we should be occupying conquered territory and forcing them to adopt our way of life. Who cares about the opinion of other countries? And as for the people of Iraq, could they hate us any worse?

This is Exactly what most of the people hate of the worst of the NAm people. No respect for other opinions or ways of living, and imposition of yours.

And now, this:

I still feel the war was necessary to remove any doubt in our strength as a nation. By now our enemies should understand that when anyone steps on American soil, they are stepping on sacred ground. Ground our forefathers won with their blood. The Arabs don't even know the meaning of Jihad until they come here intending to do us, a free people, harm. It's a shame that so many innocent Arab people must die in our demonstration of strength, but since the war, I haven't seen to many of their government sponsored demonstrations in which they are shouting "death to America".

This is so unfair! Imagine that Iran had to show that nobody can walk on their toes and makes some groups of people enter the USA and explode portable nukes in NY, LA and others. A pity for the poor americans dead, but we had to show our power. Just give me a minute (to vomit) and I'll go on.

Yeah, I have refreshed myself. OK, let's see:

As for this war being economically disastrous, you are right. My solution would be to compensate ourselve with their oil. Yes, corporate America will turn a profit by reselling the oil to the U.S. tax payers. That's the price of our 'no free lunch' world.

Now, that's also a jewel : First we destroy a country, impoverishing their people by destroying their meagre industries and setting a war economy, and a blockade, then we steal their only resource to pay for our unwanted help to the "world".

Suspicions confirmated.

Sorry, my stomach is not OK today. Bruarggghhhh!

LOL

I'm tired of the arguing about the war.

This may seem ignorant and callous to some but if you want my opinion I think we should just pull out of the Middle East. Give the Iraqis what they need and get the hell out. Let the Jews and Arabs kill each other. Until the collective mindset of these people changes there is no reason for us to intervene. Try to give them power to govern themselves and they kill each other over tribal vendettas. Try to start a peace process and they blow each other up, yelling "You started! No You!" like 3 year olds. Who is going to change the mentality of these people, the U.S.? Every time we try we f*ck it up. The EU? The EU countries have enough internal problems to focus on. The UN? (or maybe a wet rag in its place?)

Thank you Mikey. And the only way we can do that is to stop being so dependent upon Arab oil....you do remember that this is all about oil. So let's conserve energy, carpool, drive smaller cars..... I imagine 87 billion would buy an awful lot of insulation, solar energy tubes, and technological advances in energy production and conservation. But now I'm falling off the left coast.

It's very sad that my Spanish and Italian friends and family won't come to visit the US as long as that cowboy is in power, and they really don't understand what's wrong with us--why are we so arrogant? I think that the anti-American sentiment which Bush has created by declaring anyone who disagrees with him to be irrelevant is a giant step backward in human development. America hasn't been this divided since the Civil War. It's heartbreaking.

Uh...so, Ignacio,

Am I to assume you disagree with my opinion?

No, just kiding.

Just a note about American arrogance. I think the myth of "I'm American, so f*ck you!" is a little larger than life. I think a lot of people like to think that Americans are that way because our government/policies are. I can tell you I've visited Spain numerous times and have been confronted by the most arrogant of people. It works both ways.

Another thing I notice people like to harp on is the supreme ignorance of Americans and their blatant refusal at wanting to be informed.

The first couple of times I visited Europe and talked to people my age I felt kind of dumb because I wasn't as informed about world events as they were. News in Europe is very informative because...well it's in Europe. The nature of the countries requires that all be informed albeit slightly about the workings of the surrounding countries. However, the more I listened I figured out that even though they're more informed doesn't mean they care more. Just like me they take it in and go about their own.

I then thought about why I don't get the same information as they do. I mean I try to get my news from all mediums. But you know what it won't happen because THE MAJOR STORY ON THE NIGHTLY NEWS IS IF JLO AND HER FAT ASS BROKE UP WITH BEN AFFLECK. AM I SUPPOSED TO SUBSCRIBE TO THE PREMIUM CABLE CHANNELS JUST TO SEE THE INTERNATIONAL NEWS? IF I COULD AFFORD MORE THAN THE BBC USA NETWORK AND ITS 30 MINUTE NEWS PROGRAM I WOULD.

So in response to those who are believers in the inherently ignorant and close-minded Americans I must say take a time-out and think before you speak. It's not that we don't want to know, it's because hey, we're busy just like you and the convenient forms of information we have suck and are filled with garbage.

-Temporarily disgruntled.

Here is an excellent article by Frenchman Guy Sorman in he French newspaper Le Figaro The Birth of the First American Empire, Monday, September 15, 2003, translated by Cinderella Bloggerfeller , that echoes the ideas of some of the writers of this thread.

---

"Ground Zero" in Manhattan: on September 11, 2001 the first American empire was born. The first empire? Apart from incursions into their immediate environs, the United States had only become a de facto empire in the past century more as a consequence of their economic power than their political will: the inverse of British or French imperialism. Traditionally, American foreign policy was anti-imperialist, against European colonization and against the Soviet Empire. American armies only ever went to war reluctantly, they only stayed in Korea or Germany as bulwarks against imminent aggression; no gesture was more popular in the United States than "bringing the boys back home". September 11 has changed all that.

The interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by occupations which we can predict will be long-term, are the result of a new strategy, at once justified by September 11 and legitimated by the theories of the ruling neo-conservatives. Following the doctrine now dominant, pre-emptive attack and a physical presence in those places where terrorism emerges are the right responses to this threat. No longer is any corner of the world safe from an American operation followed by occupation. American soldiers, far from staying at home and waiting for another Pearl Harbor, will forestall the enemy; the guerrillas in Iraq or Afghanistan will change nothing, on the contrary. A new state of affairs which is not just military, these interventions aim to create viable and, if possible, democratic states.

...

Faced with the new American empire, Europe, without army, a unified command, or a constitution of its own, remains in a state of confusion. Its slow growth, worsened by the ruminations of the ecologists, is little by little transforming it into a museum which might be pleasant to live in for the elite but offers no windows of opportunity for the coming generations. Since the euro has not replaced the dollar, and our social-democratic economy is no alternative to the efficiency of the American market, Europe offers no development plan either for poor countries or for its own poor. Internally, it is divided by the pacifist, pro-UN diplomacy of France and Germany; externally, this diplomacy rallies to the support of some very dubious states.

Europe no longer appears the torchbearer of the Rights of Man, but the peevish advocate of the rights of rulers and of the status quo. At the beginning of our new era, a project for European civilisation is nowhere to be found, so much so that the newcomers from Central Europe and the Anglo-Saxon north are beginning to ask themselves: does the European Union have anything to do with the century we live in?

The UN is faring even worse. Long paralysed by the Cold War, the United Nations is now paralysed by its very nature. The Anglo-American snub in the Security Council over the control of Iraqi weapons did not cause but simply revealed the yawning gap between the UN Charter and its ambitions. This Council, the legacy of the 1945 peace accords, no longer represents what the world has since become : the absence of Brazil, Japan, Germany, South Africa and India means it cannot be considered a legitimate global board of directors. Until this is rectified, it is vain to expect good world governance.

The situation is just as chaotic in the general assembly; its make-up is based on the assumption that every nation is a genuine one and that all leaders enjoy equal legitimacy. Since the majority of these states are kleptocracies at best and tyrannies at worst, it is obvious that the Charter of the United Nations can no longer be considered the basis of any kind of world order. This obsolete text ignores unprecedented situations like Afghanistan or Kosovo; de facto states will multiply, in Central Asia and Africa, as de jure states vanish.

In the mean time, who would exercise global governance if not the Americans, with a few Europeans to make up the numbers? Who would replace them in emergencies? Criticism -which is indispensable - of this first American empire would be more legitimate if it were associated with a project for the complete overhaul of the UN. Since nobody is proposing one and the tyrants - a majority - would not want it, the UN, the Red Cross Mark Two, will be confined to humanitarian work. It remains to be seen how it will acquit itself.

Where are the alternatives? In the 1980s, there was talk of the decline of the West, of the emegence of new poles of power that the prophets of the time situated in Japan, China, sometimes Brazil, less often in India and never in Africa. But who still expects an alternative model to the American empire? China? She is making progress, chaotically, thanks to foreign investment and internal repression. Brazil? She wavers between liberty and statism. India? Too exotic…

The curiosity aroused ten years ago by "Asian values" has disappeared ever since the Confucian world rallied to the American model, hastily and without too much soul-searching. Finally, the metamorphosis of the USSR into a simple regional economy based on oil and gas has facilitated the great transition to universal liberalism. Even if the American empire does not possess the recipe for happiness, nobody in the East or the South would dispute it has a recipe for effectiveness.

In sum, the great adventure of the burgeoning century is not the clash of civilisations, which was never anything but a Hollywood-style metaphor with no real basis in fact; it will be the demonstation of the failure or the universality of the three great principles embodied by the first American empire: democracy, individualism and consumption. Facing it, there no longer exists either a Soviet model, or a Chinese or an Islamist one, nor a European alternative, not even a utopia. There only really remains the question posed by the American empire: to be Americanized or not to be? The century, it is true, is only three years old.

Well, it's a shame that you're friends let politics decide whether they should visit the United States. I mean, whoever the president is, the U.S. still has great things to see and do, and neither Bush nor anyone else would impede them from enjoying friends, family, and the good times you could show them while they were here. I detect a slight arrogance on their part as well.

Good article.

Well done yet again Booklady.
What country ever, ever provided more liberty and freedom for a greater amount of people than the U.S? We don't have to be loved by everyone. We are right and we are great and if that makes us arrogant, that's just too darn bad. I think that the arrogance of Americans is America's Black Legend.
Spaniards might be interested in knowing, although since I don't speak Spanish very well and all Spaniards treated me very well so I don't understand it myself, I have several Mexican friends who feel that the Spaniards are very arrogant people. But like I said, this has not been my experience. I found almost all Spaniards respectful and very very helpful and courteous.

Really, a sh*t of an article. Obviously this guy is against the way of thinking of most of the French and european citizens. He does not represent us at all, for each article like this, you can find twenty saying the opposite, this time by qualified people. When I have more time, I'll comment the details, editing this post.

I'm not saying it represents you all I'm just saying it points out facts.

I think he may push it a little too far when he alludes to the U.S. being the only power capable of policing the world.

However I think he does come close to the truth about the UN and EU though. They're not totally useless entities but, no one can deny that they DO have their share of problems that hinder them coming close the status they want to receive.

Ignacio I don't think any amount of articles from 'qualified people' you post will change anyone's opinion. They're not posted here to be like 'see I'm right'. We're not writing college essays here. They're just posted to show opinions. Articles are simply that. Writings from people lucky enough to have their opinions published. Of course it's obvious he is against French and European way of thinking because the collective mindset is against the US right now. However I think it's especially refreshing that he's able to forgo modesty and point out the faults of Europe.

OK, I agree mainly about UN and EU big difficulties to take decisions.

In the UN, MAINLY when these decisions oppose the USA, because the usual thing was that the USA bullyied or bought the rest, like Bush's guys tried to do with Mexico, Chile, and others at the Security Council (a shame!).

Sometimes, it's better to act and some it's better to wait and see. I agree that EU's position in the Jugoslavian crisis simply didn't exist, and the USA helped to solve the conflict, although with a certain consensus,and within the UN. The UE countries and many others helped, although the USA did most. There they did well (by the way, it was not Bush, was he?).

In Afghanistan, they probably had right to retailate, because they REALLY hosted Al-Quaeda camps, and were helping them in many senses. There, the problem was the way the "coalition" did it: bombing the country to the starvation and killing hundreds of terrorists along with thousands of innocent people. Other countries (EU, Japan ) paid most of the expenses of this war (huge!), we have troops there, as Germany and others.

In Irak, there is simply no reason at all for that attack, and the EU and the UN did not agree to act, Because nothing had to be done .

Invading a country only to make some oil tycoons earn lots of money at the expense of the Iraki and american soldiers' lifes and distracting the American population from the recession in the country with a "let's unite against those bad boys and forget the probelms".

This is a very old trick. The aregntinians had the Falklands war because the generals needed a distraction for the raging masses, and when there is a war everybody forgets the most urgent needs to side behind the flag.

Fortunately we don't have a Bush or one of those argentinian generals controlling the country (Spain), but still, we have a d*mned brownnoser who wants to acquire an international reputation in the shade of warlord Bush, but he will continue to be small in both senses (phisycal and as a statesman).

I do not blame the americans, although I consider that a country is responsible for what their soldiers do, for people can somewhat oppose their government like we did in Spain (90% of us was opposing war). This did not stop us from occupying the country, but, at least, we did not take part in the war itself. Had the americans and english do the same ...

And, of course, one cannot include all of the americans in this responsability. there were many that said the truth in despite of the bad moment and put in danger or even lost their jobs and reputation. To those, I must say "hats off", because I am not sure that I would dare to do the same in a country that's great in many aspects, but that in this is so few free (to oppose a war).

So, I say they are responsible, but the real one to blame is Mr. Bush (maybe Mr. Blair too), and the manipulated media (I agree) Mickey refers to, which make so difficult to the N.Am. people to have an objetive and plural info. Well, some do have it, but I know it's difficult.

To a minor extent, to blame too the "vassals" almost fascist (this time, because of their ideology) Aznar and Berlusconi, allies of Bush and Blair, with the latest praising Mussolini, and the former with half of his government formed by OPUS DEI (an integrist catolic sect).

About my comment that it doesn't represent us at all, I said this because this phrase:

Here is an excellent article by Frenchman Guy Sorman in he French newspaper Le Figaro ...

sounds to me like: "look, even a Frenchman in a French newspaper says this". May be it was my imagination, but I wanted to state the point that the great majority of intellectuals and population here in the EU are against the war.

I don't believe the point of the article is to gather pro-war sentiment or say the US is right and everyone else is wrong.

The point of the article is that the US seems to be the only viable power compared to the others, i.e. EU, UN, Soviets, China. The article is just stating the situation that exists. It is not stating the US is right for invading Iraq.

Here is an excellent article by Frenchman Guy Sorman in he French newspaper Le Figaro ...

Just some article by some Guy.....

Sí, Ignacio, it was your imagination, I was referring to the writer's nationality, i.e. a Frenchman, el frances...

Where is the data to substantiate this? Has there been a poll? Were all intellectuals polled? How was the sampling done? Who is an intellectual?

Actually, there have been a lot of polls among the population. Also, there has been many manifests by intellectuals.

In Spain, polls indicated 90% against the war, plus, more than 2.000.000 people were demonstrating in Madrid, the bigger ever, plus hundreds of thousands in each major city.

I heard results also in France, Belgium, Germany, and even in Britain they had kind of a tie. Its in the UE news, unfortunately you probably don't get them at the USA, pity.

In France, the polls on Government support speeded up to maximums, that they are still enjoying in spite of the recession menace.

The data are there for you to see, in the Net and elsewhere.

Now you see, Booklady, that is why we waddle in such ignorance. If only we had access to the information only available to Europeans the scales would fall from our eyes and we would understand that only the sage and wily Europeans hold the answer to peace in our time.
Why then, why, do they hold their cards so close to their vest and not share their unique insight with their sons and daughters who fled from their stagnant and intolerable lands?
For some reason, I'm reminded of the elixir that the good Don Quixote prepared for Sancho. The good knight promises an elixir to heal even the gravest of scars but in the end, has the elixir vomited up all over himself.
I think it would comfort Ignacio greatly if he only knew how much the American press support his point of view. I've no doubt if a poll was held by the American media, 90 percent of Americans would object to the war.
Whether or not the majority of Europeans agree with the author of your previous article it is interesting that a European, and a Frenchman, nonetheless, would come to such a conclusion. There are obviously people of reason from all countries. Wouldn't it be more productive if Ignacio refutes specific issues from the article instead of calling it what he did.

Gazpacho:

I am NOT commenting your suspicions/impressions/imaginations on European ino, Don Quixote or "people of your ¿reason?". :p

I DID comment some aspects of the article up, where I wrote about the EU and UN attitude in recent wars. I said we weren't able to reach an agreement, but we helped in both the USA because we thought it was fair. War in Jugoslavia was even more painful because it was in our supposed area of influence.

However, most of the costs of the first Gulf war were paid by other countries than the USA, mainly the EU and Japan. And many european soldiers are now patrolling Afghanistan, which is a real increasing problem the USA left behind. There is more violence each day, and more and more resources and soldiers are needed.

Now, at your petition, I´ll comment the rest of the article:

the United States had only become a de facto empire in the past century more as a consequence of their economic power than their political will: the inverse of British or French imperialism

Now, this must be a joke! I can't believe this. The very Mark Twain, back in the 19th century spoke about the USA being imperialistic in Cuba and Puerto Rico, when the USA kicked Spain out of both (vital space, isn't it?). Puerto Rico "annexed" and Cuba a protectorate (until revolution).

But there are many many previous imperialisic acts and wars:

- Seizing lands to Mexico: California, ¿Nevada?, ¿Arizona?, Texas, and others.

- Seizing lands from the Indians, breaking your own peace agreements time after time: Middle and Central USA.

- Invading and conquering federated southern colonies, that, in spite of their (wrong, in my opinion) ideas on slavery, had the RIGHT acknowledged by your own laws, to sedece. That rght was violated, and slaves in the south came to be slaves in the north, with new theoretical rights .

But american HIstory has always been imperialistic: Philippines was for very many years, another protectorate, after the WWII.

Japan and Germany were so for about 10 years.

Of course, there is the small matter of stating a new state in Africa to get free of unwaned free black people: Liberia.

But nowadays, american imperialism had changed (till Irak). Why should America conquer a country if they can access their riches through manipulated prices of resources (USA and developed countries control world raw material markets, sinking third world economies) and being able to have military capacity around the world by having bases established through political pressure and gifts of part of the money obtained through unfair commerce?

Frist ruin a country, then give them enough as to survive in exchange of bases and cooperation. Sounds like a recipe for success, doesn't it?

American armies only ever went to war reluctantly, they only stayed in Korea or Germany as bulwarks against imminent aggression; no gesture was more popular in the United States than "bringing the boys back home

That always happened to any army in the world, after a war. I believe that Ulises troops, heating hands in the Troy bonfire were cheering, just like their loving ones back in Itaca.

The interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by occupations which we can predict will be long-term, are the result of a new strategy, at once justified by September 11

11th Spetember can doubtfully justify invasion of a country, because it was not made by a country, but for a terrorst organisation, but, anyway, if it were so, that was Afghanistan reason, that has not been questioned. Not Irak's.

No longer is any corner of the world safe from an American operation followed by occupation

So, now the USA have an excuse to invade whoever they want, the same way that they did in the war of Cuba, when (it is said) they blew up an old warship to have an excuse to enter the war and extend imperialism, that did not benefit the americans at all, quite the opposite (war expenses) but some rich bussinesmen that took profit.

the guerrillas in Iraq or Afghanistan will change nothing, on the contrary

We'll see. By the moment, they are costing the USA a LOT of money, that's rocketing deficit, and menacing to deepen the crisis (I think the recession is hiding under a couple of periods of good behaviour of economy because of war expenses positive effect - only in short term- in economy), and taking more and more american lifes, AFTER Bush said that war was over. Some call them terrorists too, others call them resistence, as must be caled anyone who is a patriot and whose country was invaded by the enemy.

A new state of affairs which is not just military, these interventions aim to create viable and, if possible, democratic states

Great jke too! The USA have never cared a damm for this. They have supported the ruthless tyrants along the world, including Saddam AND his gasing the kurds when it fited their plans, like pushing Pinochet to power, and supporting him, Videla, Noriega (who later happened to be related with drug-dealing), and so many others. I think te only people wo can believe this bullsh*t are some, not all of the americans. As for the rest of the world, we have that info and know History and the horror stories too well.

Its slow growth, worsened by the ruminations of the ecologists, is little by little transforming it into a museum which might be pleasant to live in for the elite but offers no windows of opportunity for the coming generations.

There is a confusion with "economic growth". A country may be "richer" if they have more of that, but their citizens, can, in spite, be poorer. I believe we are richer here in Europe than you at the States, because salaries divided by price levels are a better proportion. One of the richer countries in the world is, suposedy Japan, But tell this to a Japanese worker who has to live in a 40 meters wide apartment along with his 3 more members of the family and the apartment has a loan of 50 years (otherwise he couldn't pay it) that his sons or grandsons will end.

This takes a lot of time. I'll go on later.

The demonstrations and polls Ignacio is talking about were widely aired on the news, at least CNN anyway. I don't know if they were aired on network news (in conjunction with coverage of the massive protests in NYC and Chicago and throughout the US) but, frankly I would never even watch network news for coverage of something so important. There were several demonstrations in Madrid of about 2000+ people each.

Refuting claims of the author with examples is kind of useless because I can just as easily refute your examples with other ones and other reasons. How the author gets to his point can be debated all you want. It's if he gets there that matters. And I think the ultimate point he makes (which I pointed out in my previous post)is a valid one.

When somebody says a country is not imperialist, the only way to show the opposite (the one you are calling examples) is thorugh facts. If I am speaking on how the USA became a country of 50 states through seizing ¿38? and you think tha's only "an example", and then the other matters I mentioned, then, it seems that's not only information what you need. :o

And try to get better information, the ones I am speaking about, were about 2.000.¡000!+. I hope you just forgot the 0s.

For those who have Acrobat Reader

For those who don\'t

Folks,
Wanted to share the latest report from the Pew Research Center.
Titled Views of a Changing World 2003: War with Iraq Further Divides Global Publics, June 2003. This is the Summary report, a few pages, the big report is also available to read or download.

The results are fascinating and well worth reading the entire report.
Among the findings:
Notable among the findings is the opinion on the United Nations, which reflects what M. Guy said in his article I previously posted
Regarding the war views of other countries, they remain entrenched, especially in Spain:
However, overall opinion of the aftermath is:
The survey covers broader issues including globalization and the quality of life.
Worry about loss of national identity, which has previously been discussed on many threads in MM is also discussed on the survey.
Overall, another excellent survey of world opinion. The entire report is well worth the read. I find it illuminating as I listen to the concerns and viewpoints of our Spanish friends that the study does reflect the prevalent views, particularly about the war and its aftermath.

Agreed Mikey,

I didn't literally want a point by point rebutal of the article, but I didn't like what the article was originally referred to offhandedly. Obviously, Ignacio is much to intelligent for that.

Ignacio,
What can I say? Your rebuttal was magnificent. It isn't saying much, but your knowledge of our history is better than mine.
But what a negative interpretation of our history. Is that what the Europeans teach about the U.S? Does it really make them feel better about their own history?

Just a few points to debate: Mark Twain was above all a humorist. Albeit a very well travelled one. He liked to make fun of the way Americans look at themselves. That's what made him so popular. Americans have a real appreciation for self-deprecating humor. We criticize ourselves for our own frustrations with the world and don't blame our neighbors and nitpick every moment of their history that wasn't a shining one.

It is true, the U.S. has been colonialist, but we have willingly surrendered our conquered territories,well, most anyway, without external forces forcing us to. As for the Philippines, is there a Filippino that exist that wouldn't want to be part of the U.S. right now? I know a lot about this because my wife is Filippina. Unfortunately for the Philippines, making them part of the U.S. would have been economically disastrous for us then and now.

And as for the South having the right to seperate themselves from the rest of the country, that's what the war was all about. And as for our Southwestern states and Califonia, I can't imagine too many of their citizens wishing they were part of Mexico.

Please don't get me wrong. Your rebuttals are not mere opinions and I have heard many of these facts before, but are they contextual? For example, I could say that Spain is a bloodthirsty country because the Inquisition went on for so long, but I know better. I've cared enough to check my facts and I realize that my initial intuition was faulty.

The only reason I respond here is because I don't like the U.S. being raked over the coals. Were King Juan Carlos or Prime Minister Aznar to make an unpopular decision, I would of course have my own feelings about it, but I wouldn't beat the Spanish people up for it. And I wouldn't consider them evil, or self-serving, only doing what they think is best for their country if possibly misguided.

Ignacio,

I don't think you understood my post. Let me try and clarify it. I said EXAMPLES (facts) I did not say OPINIONS. I didn't tell you that what you said is false or fabricated. You presented facts and your interpretation of them. If you want to attach the word 'seize' and negative connotations to the annexation of states then fine. Historical interpretation is what makes history a great subject. However, I can easliy look at facts (examples) and re-interpret them. This is all I meant in my previous post. I did not say your examples are false.

I only mention the Madrid protests of 2000+ people because those are the ones my girlfriend called me from. She called my and told me there are more than 2000 people here so that is what I know. I assumed people heard of the 2 mil. people protest being that this is a Madrid board..

Last, I would say let's try to curb the sarcastic and snide postings under the disguise of friendly discussion. Unless of course you're not disguising them but I think you're above that.

Hello Gazpacho,
So nice to "hear" from you again!
Sadly, Gazpacho, I wish the Europeans held the "answer to peace in our times," but they are as anxious and uncertain in this new world political paradigm as we are. I think we have entered a new political paradigm that is underscored in both the first article by Guy and the Pew study. There is no easy answer to today's political dilemma. The roots of what we, Americans as well as Europeans, are facing now were planted by the Europeans in the 10th century, and has continued. Our problems have long roots.

The one redeeming point, as pointed out by the Pew study,is that the peoples of the world, including those in the Muslim world, are desirious of a more democratic lifestyle. That is indeed the best news that we can have in this century.
Saludos,
Carmen

I´ll comment the rest of the article, and Booklady's new input ASAP. This is taking too much of my free time. Thanks God I took today free at work or I wouldn't have had time for so much!

It takes me a long time to try to express myself in English, and much more, when I am trying to be accurate and not leave loose ends where I could be misinterpreted. I know I won't be able to do it but I try.

For example, Mickey, I didn't take your coments as if I were sharing only my opinions. What I meant by putting examples in italics is that, if you take 100 cases and refer to 3 of them, then these are examples , but if you refer to facts that sum a high percentage of the possible cases, then you are detailing many of the facts, not just a couple of examples.

I wrote on how the USA got most of its states, like 38 from 50 is not just an example, it's most of the story on How The Country Was Built.

Gazpacho:

Of course, the USA have the right to invade any country in the world because everybody is willing to be american, or their descendants would... :o Come on!

About Spain, Spain probably was in some aspects the boodthirsty country you are describing, although there is a Black Legend on Spanish Inquisition. I heard that Spanish Inquisition is nowadays more famous than other european Inquisitions, but that much less people died because of them than in others. For example, in France, the night of Saint Bartolomew, were killed more french protestants than in the whole history of the Inquisition.

The Black Mail of the inquisition was fomented among others by spanish dominicos monks who had teological (and economical, and estate) differences with the jesuitas, whom they wanted to blame of anything, true or no.

But Spain was imperialist. Is no more, because we're no longer invading counries and slaughtering people. Other countries are doing that now.

If you read carefully my posts, starting by the first one in this thread, I dont blame the americans on anything, because there are any kind of americans as there is any kind of spanish. I blame this american agressive imperialist government, and, in general the previous ones whose interventionist policies have made the USA nowadays a synomime of the word Imperalism.

I know americans who object this, and I know that many intelectuals, artists and scientifics have objected the war. I could never say put everybody in the same sack.

Ignacio,

Somewhere we are missing each other.

" But there are many many previous imperialisic acts and wars:

- Seizing lands to Mexico: California, ¿Nevada?, ¿Arizona?, Texas, and others."


You are presenting US annexation of states as an EXAMPLE of US imperialist policy.

You are interpreting the history. Other people could interpret the history another way.

That is what I am saying.

Hope it's clear now.

Sorry guy, I really think we are both trying to understand each other, now, but I simply can't get the point.

Of course these are examples, but so many examples is makes History is composed of. But I am not interpreting History. If annexing states that belong to other countries or nations is not imperialism, perhaps we have to re-define the term.

If I say I like ice-creams and I say I ate one on saturday, that's an example. But if I sum the 200 ice-creams I ate this year, well, this is an example, and it is much more. It is the description of How I Eat. Apply parallelism.

"If annexing states that belong to other countries or nations is not imperialism, perhaps we have to re-define the term."

You can either say the US belligerently took the land known today as California, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Utah, and parts of Colorado and Wyoming.
OR
You could say that the US received those lands as proper indemnity from Mexico, the country that provoked war with the US.

These are both interpretations of history.

No Ignacio,

You're right. The U.S. doesn't have a right to invade any other country. But acts of war are not governed by rights. There are no laws governing war. Who would arbitrate?

When you and your ilk start being as vocal against the people that would terrorize our country, then, and only then, talk to me about what we have a right to do.

I see most of the world much more indignant about our handling of the war, than I ever did against the attacks on the U.S. in the first place. That really makes me wonder why we should worry about world opinion in the first place.

In other words, when I start seeing groups of 2 million, 2000, 200 or even 20 people out in the streets protesting terrorism, Moslem fundamentalism, etc. then I'll consider protest against the U.S. relevant.

An interesting debate, and I've tried to stay out of it. After all, I am an American, and according to some of our posters, therefore absolutely wrong no matter what I say.

But let's point out one major fact. EU is already a dinosaur facing extinctions. The very foundation of the union was to undermine the U.S. in policies and economically, by creating a united state that was larger and more powerful. All that's happened at this point is total disagreements over just about every issue, and inflation in countries like Spain that can least afford it, based on incomes. As for a military, that's a joke now isn't it?

It was pretty well expected that the U.S. would end up standing alone on the Iraqi issue. Especially since being opposed to the U.S. stand played better in public, and as an attempt to unify the EU nations. Sorry! It didn't happen. Spain and the UK ended up in the U.S. camp.

Of course Germany and France have had, and will continue to have, a distaste for all things American. The Germans specifically because we kind of kicked their asses in two wars, and the French, because they've always been pretty much unable to defend themselves, and it was up to the U.S. and the UK to pull their fat out of the fire in two world wars. Then there was their defense during the Cold War. Humiliating for both factions, wouldn't you say? Since the Cold War ended, both Germany and France have constantly been opposed to the U.S. Interestingly enough, much of EU followed them like sheep, unwilling to take a stand that wouldn't be popular with both nations.

The rebuilding of Iraq has nothing to do with the war itself. It's total ignorance and arrogance on the part of the UN and EU to sit at home pouting because they aren't getting their way. To be honest, I don't give a damn if they don't help rebuild, and I don't give a damn how they complain when they aren't "favored nations in trade" when Iraq is finally rebuilt. You make your bed then you have to lay in it, just like the U.S. has to, for prosecuting the war.

But rest assured the constant bickering and infighting in EU will tear it apart. When that happens, where will everyone turn for help? You might want to try Iran, Syria, or Morocco. Since the feeling in Europe is that we are maligning these people, they must be your buddies. Good luck! You're going to need it.

Wolf

Oh boy Wolf,

Europe trying to give the U.S. a run for our money??? I'm scared. First they would have to chuck the yoke of Socialism before they can even try.

I have close ties to the military since I once was in and am currently working at a base. We received an email today which totally discredits the media we receive here about the U.S.'s progress in Iraq.

It seems the trains are running for the first time since 1991. Schools have desks and blackboards, money is starting to be printed, and most of all, the Iraquis have an unsatiable appetite for Western progress. Hard to believe they don't want to go back to the way things were when Saddam was in power isn't it?

Wolf:
But let's point out one major fact. EU is already a dinosaur facing extinctions. The very foundation of the union was to undermine the U.S. in policies and economically, by creating a united state that was larger and more powerful. Yes, all the countries reasons are based on what the USA do or don't do. A bit egocentric, isnt't it'

As for Spain, for the first time in my life, I came to admire France, and asking for French citizenship is a faint idea that has crossed my mind a couple of times. Since I can't feel close to the nationality that birth gave me, Why not join other that I ademire? All first generation americans did, didn't they?

The rebuilding of Iraq has nothing to do with the war itself.

EXCUSE ME? What's got rebuilding to do with? Not about what the americans destroyed?

It's total ignorance and arrogance on the part of the UN and EU to sit at home pouting because they aren't getting their way. To be honest, I don't give a damn if they don't help rebuild, and I don't give a damn how they complain when they aren't "favored nations in trade" when Iraq is finally rebuilt. You make your bed then you have to lay in it, just like the U.S. has to, for prosecuting the war.

I'll pass on such adjectives as ignorance and arrogance, that I could have used on the USA much more properly, but preferred to keep cool and have maners. But look what you propose!:

-We destroy a country which has most of it's commercial relations with our commercial competitors.

-We reconstruct what we have destroyed, preferrently with other people's money.

-If we are not given help (or even if we do, considering what Spain has received, after Aznar brownnosing and Bush's promises - and I prefer it this way, no blood stained money) the commerce of this country is USA's.

This is precisely the plan from the beginning.

If you have a shop that does not want to buy or sell you products, you burn it, then you reconstruct it again (better if some fool helps), and then, the shop is now yours (included captured land it's on), and your products have a way.

Al Capone wouldn't have done better.

Gazpacho:

It seems the trains are running for the first time since 1991. Schools have desks and blackboards, money is starting to be printed, and most of all,

Funny, and ... what year does this come from? 1991, eh? Hummmmmm

the Iraquis have an unsatiable appetite for Western progress.

True, that's why we see the signs of thankfulness in the TV each day. :o

Sorry lads, as I said before, I just intervened to smoothen things (see my 1st post), but I am not going on in another debate of dozens of messages that need long meditated answers. I have a work to attend and a social life. I leave you for now.

Enjoy the debate!

The postings have become a bit biased and are going round and round.

I'm going to bit goodbye to this thread and start focusing on the ones about Spain and look forward to my move there!

Ta-ta.

Well, 1991 Ignacio,

That would be the day that the glorious forces of the U.S. liberated Kuwait. Remember Kuwait. That's the country that the saintly Saddam invaded with his peaceful defenseless army.
Thanks for all the insight from your point of view. I guess I'm never going to understand why people can take the time to demonstrate against the U.S. and not say jack about the real evil, corrupt, tyrannical nations in this world.

Taken from an article on cnn.com about a meeting between Blair, Chirac and Shroeder.

"Obviously Iraq will be discussed as will other European matters," the spokesman said, adding that Saturday's meeting would be "informal" and was called "by consensus rather than anybody talking the initiative."

"rather than anybody talking the initiative."
:p

Thought that was pretty funny in the midst of this thread.

I don't think other countries should help the US. If Bush has enough money to give 2 trillion $ to the rich, then he can just revoke the tax cuts and finance his stupid, illegal war. He went into this ignoring world opinion, lying, misleading people about the seriousness of the situation, now he is paying the price, or rather, the taxpayers and their sons and daughters in the military are. Bush did not/does not have a plan for he thought his troops would be hailed as liberators like Paris after the Germans were repulsed in WWII, and did not plan for alternatives. Now he is demanding everyone else come in and clean up his mess, and save his butt, without any control. Why should they, especially since Bush will not share power, planning or anything. He wants other countries to toe his line OR ELSE! Well, the world does not work that way. His globalization cuts two ways. I am an expatriate mainly because of what this idiot has done since the "election." Until we have a truly democratic, ELECTED government which cares about the people, not just the wealthy, then I will return to live. Hopefully not before. The warmongers DO owe us peaceniks one immense apology! Zane is right!

A very interesting piece appeared in Front Page Magazine Democrats on the Record
---
I guess Ms, Zane et all have a long list of Warmonger apologists!

WELCOME TO THE DEAD HORSE BEATINGS THREAD!

Pick up a stick and start whacking!!!

Hehe.

It takes a lickin' and it keeps on kickin'

ROTFLMAO!!!!!

Seriously enough, let's get back on track before MM closes this thread, shall we?

What for? What's the point?? What's it going to resolve??? Absolutely nothing!!!!!! Everything's been said, all the sh*t's been slung at each other .

Ya basta!!!!!! Move on.................

The main purpose of ARGUING and DISCUSSING is to clear up issues that we need to revolve on our own terms in this forum. Being evasive or oblivious to what is going on around us is NOT going to make it go away at the snap of a madrileño's finger. Seriously, this is how wars end up starting in the first place.

The problem about that is that some issues are painful or touchy for most people, and the result of some debates is getting angry with each other, maybe insults, moderation, lots of hours of posting + looking up in the Net for sources,...

... and in the end, as Osomajor says, no conclusion is extracted. The previous debate and discussion has stated the positions of the participants, for anybody who wants to get information. The debate was beginning to be a circular reasoning , and it was getting closer to arguing.

Once that we expose our positions and reason them, is there any specific reason to keep on putting fire in the oven until we begin to insult each other or, at least, be rude? Because I have seen that before, and its disgusting and rarely helps to acquire more knowledgge.

El Cid..."Verbum sapiente sat est!--¡Una palabra al sabio es suficiente!"

This isn't just some random saying I picked up somewhere...My father taught it to me. It speaks volumns without saying much.....thus the moral of the saying.

Regarding this thread, there is nothing more to say or to add that hasn't been mentioned in the original thread. Most of it isn't very nice and people have traded insults with each other. What needed to be said has been said. It has become a dead horse issue!

Now if you really want to start a good debate, get two viejitas to discuss the best way to prepare bacalao or two viejitos in making authenic paella Valenciana!

"A word to the wise / Una palabra al sabio..." --> You may have a point when it comes to your proverb. However, this discussion about America's "liberation" of Iraq should be left to persons more level-headed about the subject at hand. True, it is also unproductive to curse at one's own desire, especially when it's a waste of the forum's bandwidth and MM has to pay for it in the meantime.

As for the "bacalao or two viejitos in making authenic paella Valenciana!", I might have to get back to you on that. :o

LOL first we argued about the war and this and that.......now we're arguing about whether or not we should argue anymore.

I will echo my first post and say let's stop being circular and argumentative and try to put our energy towards something more productive.

Mikey

With all due respect to everyone's opinion, the worst thing a society can do is censor public dialogue. While this board is not a "country" it does represent a microcosm of a society of users.

I believe that if members choose to discuss issues that are important to them they may do so.


After all, you don't have to participate, and you can ignore the thread, like so many members have done so.

Right on Booklady! People do not have to read what's in a thread. I also agree that it's nice to be able to see and state points of view in a forum like this one, because we have so many people with diverse backgrounds.

I've always believed that people who are afraid to hear someone else's point of view are either too self ingrossed to listen, or too engrained in their beliefs to allow any other opinion being offered.

I too oppose censorship.

I'm with you 100% my friend!

Wolf

Of course nobody is able to (nobody could anyway, but for MM) forbid new posts in this thread.

It's only that we all know (Don't we, Wolf?) where it leads when a thread gets very hot and discusion gives way to argument, and when sarcasm leads to rudeness and maybe rudeness to insults.

Anyway, the data are there, and I am trying to avoid making further considerations on the said, because I know (experience tells me so) this will lead to a quarrel thread. This matter is a very personal matter for many people.

Also, as Osomajor says, info is in the thread already, what could be following now is opinions on the USA's foreign policy, which is a sensible matter, since most spanish hate it no matter they may like the USA or not, their foreign policy is hated in most countries uniformly.

For example, I could have gone on with the comments of Mickey about the way the USA got most of it's states' land, because the "interpretation" he makes of History seems laughable to me. But until now I had restrainted myself to do so, not to heat the topic.

Most of the components of the board, at least of those intervening in this topic are N.Am., this is why I simply got overwhelmed by the task of answering all replies, documenting my answers, researching, and doing most of this in English (I go much more slowly), taking the best care in selecting words in a language that's not mine to make it undertandable and that nobody can put words in my mouth because of saying vague or wrong words.

If you want a thread where all the Americans in MM can join and say "america is the best and is always right" and the rest answer "True" "Aye", and so on, it's up to you to go on. Never heard of censorship by forum members.

I renounce to keep on having a dialogue of this kind, at least unless some more spaniards (including the starter of the thread, who didn't appear anymore) help me defend the spanish point of view (90%+ of the spaniards against the war at the very beginning, now probably many more, I guess), which is not different to many other nations but for the USA vassals or clients (like Turkey that is against the invasion but will send 10.000 men in exchange of about 8.500.000.000 $). I refuse to be the Quijote of lots of people who would agree with me but won't take the task in their shoulders.

Writing a while is nice, but having to be hours doing the above tasks is only nice when you have unlimited amounts of time and feel like that.

Besides, I have read several forum members, whom I respect, like Calibasco and Wolf, who, I know, have opinions that diverge from mine, and I would hate to get angry with them or Vice versa, just because of a topic I never wanted to discuss in this mainly american forum.

Ignacio's right.

Everyone has the right to discuss but after a while all points are made and thickheaded-ness prevails along with needless insults.

Ignacio has his own interpretation of history and I mine. We could go on for hours presenting research countering each other's arguments. However, we stopped because we know that it is rather impotent to keep arguing.

I think it's important to bring a degree of objectivity to these discussions in order to avoid insults or biting sarcasm a.k.a. 'heated discussion'.

Ignacio,

Then, if you want to get into interpretation of how the states in the U.S. came to be, we can start discussing how it is that Spain believes they "own" the Basque Country, couldn't we? In other words, don't bother pointing out our "shortcomings" until you rectify your own as a nation. At least we don't hear about California wanting to leave the U.S. and become their own nation like the Basques. Spain's world wide empire was removed from them by force, not because of the nation's good hearted nature, don't you think?

What puzzles me most is why anyone would spend all their time trying to find fault with the U.S. when they have so many of their own internal problems to rectify. Like someone said, earlier on, when we see 2,000 Spaniards standing up, and picketing against Al Qaeda, we'll begin to take the voice of people who protest against us seriously. Until then, the soap box doesn't work.

You can't say you're against what we do.... and demonstrate against it.... then allow what's happening around the world due to terrorists stand on it's own merit without showing some unity against it. Isn't that kind of a small minded position to take? No matter what, the U.S. is wrong, has always been wrong, will always be wrong, and there's absolutely no redeeming quality for the reason it exists?

Sorry! That's not something an American will accept without standing up and being counted.

As for previous threads, there are new posters in this one. I'm just trying to figure out why we hear that threads should end the moment the tide turns against anti-American sentiment in each thread. There's something wrong with that picture.

I believe that's called censorship. If you don't want to hear what someone else is saying, don't open the thread. It's just that simple.

What you and I have learned from our agreements and disagreements is that they should never distract from our being friends. Let's hope everyone realizes how important that is.

Wolf

" At least we don't hear about California wanting to leave the U.S." Funny you should mention that Wolf. As bad as the budget crises is here in California ($35,000,000,000), it's still the 5th largest economy in the world, and people here light heartly say we should secede from the Union.
There are groups here that want to split California in half and turn it into two separate states, Northern and Southern California.

Im wondering if I left the impression that Im pro censorship when I mentioned that this topic is a dead horse issue and why need to continue feeding it. Truth be known I really don't give a rat's buttucks if the thread continues or not, but I really feel that everything about the Iraq situation has been touched on (pro & con) and we should focus on a different topic. It could involve similar topics regarding US policies or European or Middle Eastern policies, whatever...

A topic is only interesting when it focuses on fresh information, lively debate and tempered argument. It gets old and tired once it starts merry-go-rounding and the same things are thrashed out over and over again.

Maybe your right Wolf, maybe I and others who are tired of this subject shouldn't click on the topic anymore...but you know the old saying, "Curiousity kills the cat!" So, maybe I'll just go ahead and continue to click in and roll my eyes and nod my head and see just how long this slug fest will last.

But y'all can rest assured that I won't be adding anymore comments here....nope....no Sir.....I won't.......not gonna do it!........no mas..............the hell I won't!

Wolf:

As I said before, I can't and wouldn't want to forbid anything, so , do as you like, what can I say?

AS for the basques, I really prefer not to speak on this matter, besides, it's off-topic in this thread. There are a lot of threads in MM's for those who want to read about this.

As for the Spanish Empire, it was removed by force with the economic and political first, and militar later, help of a new growing Empire, the USA Empire.

It doesn't matter how many problems we may have when it comes to say if one thing is good or bad. I am the first to make auto-critic when it comes to the spanish situation, corruption, and so on. When I see something that's bad I say it, no matter what country it`s about.

I don't know wether there were demonstrations against Al-Quaida. I wonder if there was any in the USA at that moment. I think there was no need, since everyone sympatized and felt sorry for the poor people dead in the towers, this was almost unanimous here, as USA travellers have posted in this very site.

However, what the USA have done is incredibly more evil. A tower for two countries destroyed.

And the first country could have a reason, because there were Al-Quaeda camps, but Irak had nothing of what Bush said they had. destroying ths country for their oil was an infamy, and occupying it an act of dishonour and abuse forever staining the USA reputation.

Most of the international community and public opinion supported or at least kept silent about Afghanistan, but this bloody bragging of the USA in Irak has confronted the whole world public opinion and most countries.

It's not that it should be closed because more pro-North Americans arrived to the thread. In fact I can't remember anyone asking MM to close it, only suggesting to let it be.

It begun as a sensible topic, positions begun to heat, and I feel (and the other posters too) it did not lead to anywhere, since the same facts were been seen absolutely differently by each faction. Example: for me, the USA expanden to become what it is, in an obvious imperialist way (and so think everyone I know), but it seems that for some or all the N.Am. people, it was justified by some stange offenses , attacks, ..., that the weaker countries and tribes did to the powerful neighbour to make him invade them and steal territory.

Since positions and interpretation of the very same facts are so apart, do you think there is a serious possibility of intelligent dialogue? I don't.

There is another matter and it's my own position. I simply cannot be facing you all, in English and resarching to suport my words with facts. It's exhausting, and until now I am the only one on this side, but for the first post (I wonder why he started the topic, where I entered to make him respect the americans because not everybody was suppoting the same positions, if he is posting no more).

This is the reason why I won't post much but for a short reply from here on. It´s not just because of reinforcements. It´s because I can not put up with your posts, I don't have tiem enough. By now, I think I have been writing more that 45', and I simply cannot do this very often.

What Osomajor and Mickey, and me, did were suggestions. As for me, you can be discussing this matter forever, i'll try to post just a paragraph as a maximum or post an article or something that doesn't make me work that much. Booklady's style, no, Booklady?

And preferently not post anymore, but maybe a courtesy post in case you want to reply, not to leave you "con la palabra en la boca" (with the word in your mouth, and me leaving), and then preferrebly nothing. Then you can praise each other how good is the USA foreign policy that's hated throughout the world. A bloody empire's.

Ok, everybody, a group HUG!

First of all it is a pleasure having the opportunity to "meet" all of you, Oso, Mikey, Ignacio, Gazpacho, Wolf, el Cid, et al. It is wonderful to have a forum where we can each bring and share the polarity of our ideas.

Yes, the topic of this thread is a very important and because it is so important it can be intense. But we learn more about ourselves and others during these intense discussions. I know that on the last ETA thread where our friends Ignacio and Fernando explained the polarity of their positions, the thread was most illuminating for me. The complexity of the issues became clearer for me as a member.

These types of threads and the persuant discussions offer breakthroughs for many of us.

Ignacio writes me:
Bueno, Ignacio, I usually spend my time finding, what in my opinion are thought-filled articles. At times the article may exemplefy my perspective, but not necessarily so, at times it makes the case for the opposing view point more clear to me at least. But mainly an article that focuses on the ideas we are discussing. It does take a lot of work though, sifting and searching for an appropriate piece. The Internet is full of garbage and missinformation.

I try hard and strive to learn from others. I do despise above all being labelled epistemologically arrogant. If I may have sounded so, I humbly apologize. I do try and hope that I give you, Ignacio, the impression that while we may not agree on cetain issues,like this one, that I respect your perspective and I admire your efforts to communicate in English, which you do very well, btw. I have enjoyed your friendship this past year, and hope that we can continue to discuss these important issues as friends who disagree.

Epistemologically arrogant? I don't believe so. You bring a good source of information for which I personally appreciate.

Thank you Oso, it means a lot to me coming from you!
Castos Besos!

Gracias y merced ha usted!

Booklady, while I am not pretty sure of what epistemologically arrogant exactly means, I want to explain that I didn't mean you don't take any effort when writing. I know by my own experience it takes a lot of work to surf the Net in search of good articles and texts among the garbage.

What I mean is that doing that, and also doing 45 minutes of writing is just too much. I only do this when I get very very involved, and later I regret having spend so much time. It is more intelligent to post an article that support one's point of view or write a couple of paragraphs than longer posts, but the debate often takes me (and others) to longer and longer posts.

There was a smiley also, to show complicity, in my previous post.

It´s very nice of you to speak like that. Considering the tone of the responses of both of us, I thought you probably were hurt, and I somehow was too. See, how this matters can weaken e-friendship ties? At least, I was rather wary. Glad we mantain our friendship, in spite of ocasional sarcasm.

According to my new policy , a text from yesterday's newspaper: El Mundo:

Resulta que un día dijeron por la tele: «¡Tres minutos de silencio por los muertos del 11-S!» Y fui, y los hice. Pero más tarde pensé: «Si las seis mil víctimas de las Torres Gemelas merecen tres minutos de silencio, el millón y medio de iraquíes muertos por culpa del embargo estadounidense merecerían más de doce horas. ¿No?» Y fui, y las hice. Pero luego pensé: «Y a los trescientos mil muertos de Hiroshima y Nagasaki, víctimas del primer atentado terrorista nuclear, les corresponderían dos horas y media. ¿No?» Y fui, y las hice. Bueno, en realidad, hice seis, más que nada por las secuelas radiactivas... Pero pensé: «Hombre, y las víctimas del bombardeo de Clinton que destruyó los recursos farmacéuticos de Sudán, merecerían al menos media horita. ¿No?» ¡Y fui, y la hice! Y, bueno, ya me puse a sumar: los 35.000 civiles de la anterior Guerra del Golfo, los de Bosnia, los de Afganistán... Los palestinos, los libaneses, los chilenos, los nicaragüenses, los guatemaltecos, los colombianos, los cubanos, los vietnamitas... Total, que me fui metiendo, me dejé llevar... Y estuve, a lo pijo, dos años en silencio, sin hablar. De verdad... Me daba vueltas la cabeza, sólo veía muertos, desaparecidos, injusticias... Uf, tenía la mente teñida de sangre, era incapaz de pronunciar palabra. ¡No tenía palabras! Era como si, de pronto, se me hubiera olvidado articular, modular, verbalizar algo lógico, ¡comunicar! Nada. Había perdido mi propio idioma, la lengua materna, ese acento de Mieres tan familiar...

http://www.elmundo.es/elmundolibro/2003/10/09/no_ficcion/1065694480.html

Ignacio,

For the life of me, I can't understand why anyone would lend credence to a person who writes an article that starts off by referring to Nagasaki & Hiroshima during WWII as being a "terrorist attack." The person obviously has no honest recollection of history, or as to why those bombs were dropped. Another possibility? They don't care, it's just another stake to drive into the heart of America because they hate us.

I don't know how many times even the Japanese people have to tell the story of how they would have lost millions of women and children had the U.S. and their Allies had to invade Japan. Obviously the writer doesn't want to become confused by facts since the only reason the article was written was to "chastise" America.

As soon as credibility is lost, and obviously it was by that arrogant pronouncement against the U.S., and nothing is left but the remnants of a fool's words.

Where in that article did it speak of the terrors visited on the people of Afghanistan by their ruthless leadership that fostered and protected Al Qaeda? Where in that article did it say that they had no right to do that? Where in that article did it talk about the human rights violations against the people of Iraq, who didn't happen to be Bathhists? It didn't because it wasn't intended to tell about those indignations. The article was written solely to attack the U.S.

No! The article was written strictly with an "anti-American" theme. Of course that's popular, isn't it? Continually bash the U.S., and hold us responsible for the failure of other nations to hold dear the rights of individuals.

What disturbs me most is when people attack the U.S., and everything about us, then say we have no right to say the same about the structure of their own governments, and the way they treat people.

Strangely enough, most of us respect the sovereignty of Spain enough that we don't go off half cocked with half baked articles written by less than credible journalists who have an ax to grind against Spain. Yet, we're supposed to sit back and accept all the unfair criticism or our nation and people because it's someone else's right?

Sorry! It don't work that way, and whether you put an article like that on this page in English or Spanish, it's the same anti-American crap we've heard before.

I wonder where Europe and the elitist attitude we're seeing now would be if Hitler was allowed to run his course, or if the Russians could have had their way with the entire continent.

Of course none of that matters, because America is the "Great Satan of the World."

Nothing personal in my response, just against the writer whom I believe is a moron.

Wolf

Wolf...he forgot to give a moment of silence to the myriads of indigent peoples of the Americas that died at the hands of the conquistadores and Spanish colonists (as well as from other European powers) by means of enslavement, torture, slave labor, and old world diseases and STILL suffer neglect! Who remembered them?

Maybe a moment of silence for the future intelligence of Europe?

Well said Wolf and Oso.

Ignacio, as I read the article I noticed that the writer was very selective by focusing his attention only on one country: the United States. The United States is not the culprit of the world.

What he was trying to achieve was to diminish the meaning of the deaths of the people that died on September 11,2001. That is wrong. You cannot diminish or undermine what happened to those people on that day by saying, well worse happended to these people and these people and these people.

Why did the writer do that? Because he wanted to marginalize the pain of the people of the United States. In essense he was saying your pain is no greater than anyone else's. That argument is wrong and lacks verisimilitude.

If he were truly as shocked by man's inhumanity to man he would have been more convincing if he listed all of the episodes where people have died.

He failed to convince me because he failed to mention the millions of people killed by Saddam Hussein and his party during the years of his tyranny. Not to mention the thousands of Kuwaitis, Kurds and Iranians. Don't they too deserve a little time?

He failed to convince me because he failed to mention the millions of Asian peoples killed by the Japanese prior to second world war, not to mention the thousands of innocent men, women and children in China, Oceania, the Phillipines, Korea, etc during the war. Don't they too deserve a little time?

He failed to mention the millions of Jews that were butchered by the Nazi regime and their European cohorts during World War II. Don't they too deserve a little time?

He failed to mention the millions of soviet people that fell to the Soviet empire in the Gulag. Don't they too deserve a little time?

He failed to mention the millions of Arab peoples that perished during the European crusades. Don't they too deserve a little time?

Oso already mentioned the horror of the Americas, and the deaths and decimations of the native peoples and then the African diaspora.

The list is long,and if you go far enough it covers all peoples, so I won't continue. If the writer were honest he would have said we are all culprits, but he did not.

Of course, there is some evil in the world that is not produced by the USA foreign policy. I won't object that.

But the fact that jews were killed and all the rest doesn't make all those killings and invasions less unfair and bloody.

I suppose the reason why he doen't mention them is just because he is speaking of the USA foreign policy and not of all the possible massacres in History.

I heard that justification for the nukes, and it simply laughable. Yes, the USA threw the bomb on civilians (ain't that a terrorist act? what woud you think on a nuke in NY tomorrw?) against all war rules, proving themselves in this sense as evil as the british bombing Dresden or the nazis Gernika.

As for the Spanish empire, it was not a tenth as bloody as the anglo-saxon media has widespread, or as the anglo-saxon methods themselves in the very N.Am. and other colonies. Anyway, it was an empire by the force of the guns, and it was created 500 years ago, when most of the actual cruelties wee made. I would like to believe that in 500 years we have learnt something, but we haven't since the USA behaves as ruthlessly as the conquerors 500 years before. Wrong both cases, but those were times of taking things by the sword, ..., and these seem too, for the USA.

Saying that the USA does things because people are being harassed by their governments is considered a good joke, outside the USA. The USA not only don't do anything against many governments who makes their people slaves, but also helps them when it suits their interests. Like in Israel and their invasions of Palestina, Lebanon, and Syria, ..., like Noriega in Panamá, like the very Saddam, who was gasing this people with the USA looking somewhere else.

For those not blind, there is a clear reason for Afghanistan (revenge) and Irak (oil) that has nothing to do with freeing people. Let's face facts not try to foolish our conscience!

Booklady and Wolf,

At first glance, it would appear that Ignacio's postings are thinly disguised anti-U.S. propaganda, but I've come to realize it isn't. It is the same crap we hear in the U.S. by our liberal mass media. The current liberal dogma is that our president can do no good and is responsible for all evil that exist and has ever existed in the world. Anyone, including butchers like Saddam, that opposes our president is an enlightened benefactor to mankind. We are so inundated with this message, that it is a wonder that we don't all feel that way.
I apologize to Ignacio for my previous posting about the intelligence of Europe. There is nothing unique to Europe concerning falling prey to evil leftist socialist liberal misinformation. I guess the death bell tolls for independent rational thought and for that we should all concede a moment of silence.
Could anyone explain to me why they think it important to provide articles that support their points of view on this thread? Sure, some of these writer's are well educated and erudite, but is their opinions really any more important than your own? I really like Booklady's postings because it's satisfying to see that some writer's have some of the same thoughts on subjects that I do, but I hardly need them for validation of my reasoning. But given the amount of information/misinformation available on every topic imaginable, can't we all find articles to support any side we take with any issue? Why then do posters share these articles with us, and why does someone as confident about his opinion as Ignacio is, feel he has to spend time researching articles that support his point of view?

Ignacio...there are NO INNOCENT countries. They all have their own self interests and believe me whether they've been manipulated internally or externally, it's all selfish!

We did forget to mention the Spanish Civil War. Why did a million Spaniards have to die? Franco's self interests.

Your comment regarding that "there is some evil in the world that is not produced by the USA foreign policy. I won't object that." That's so laughable, I couldn't believe it... some evil. SOME EVIL!!!!!!!!!!!!??????????? That's like saying...yes, there are some Chinese that live in Asia. Or, yes, Hitler did kill some Jews. Come on!!! The majority of the evil in the world is not due to America's foreign policy.

The US was sucked into both world wars. It wasn't our choice. Hitler's U boats and Pearl Harbor forced us into it. The Japanese were warned repeatedly that the US was prepared to drop the bomb on their country. It was the Japanese Army's refusal to surrender and to continue fighting that made the US drop it. Yes, what a horror, hundred's of thousands of innocent as well as military were killed, instantly! Did the Japanese army warn the people of Manchuria before invading it, slaughtering millions of men, women, and children? Sexually enslaving thousands of Korean and Phillipine women? What about the horrors of the concentration camps which were more ruthless than Hitler's? Their policy was as racist as Hilter's, to enslave the white man and make them pay for their intrusions into Asia. All other Asians were beneath them and deserved to be conquered; sounds familiar? I know Im repeating what Booklady mentioned, but it needed repeating.

Please don't tell me (and I know you didn't) that all the problems in Africa are due to American foreign policy. I blame that on Europe, carving up country after country to expand their own imperialistic control. Let's face it, Spain didn't leave a great mark in Latin America when it comes to government. The US hasn't done any better.

Stalin's slaughter of 30,000,000 Russians is some evil too right? And the desaparecidos in Argentina and other parts of Latin America is some evil too right.

By your comment some evil , you minimized the other atrocities of the world. Whether it was your intention or not!

Excellent points, Gazpacho.

I know your question was rhetorical, right? About the gathering of articles that are germane to the topic at hand?

I can only speak on my behalf, and I have to admit that it is my academic training as a professional librarian. You just cannot "kill" about thirty years of training that reinforces the provision of substantiation for your ideas, and giving credit for the ideas of others. Mainly, I do not want to plagiarize anyone else's ideas. It seems more practical to offer the article and a small summation.

I spend my days teaching college students to cite, cite, cite! So, naturally, I cite! Cite! And Cite when I come on this board.

So please forgive an "old" library lady!

Ignacio, I agree with you 100% on this thread. Not on every thread. But on this thread, YOU' RE OK! My kids HAVE TO go to bed now, so I cannnot elaborate! Lo siento. I like y'all anyway!

Can anyone give me a recipe for palmeras?

You need:

- a seed
- water
- earth
- fertilizer

You put the seed into the earth, then add water and fertilizer. Add more fertilizer and water monthly. Wait for some years. :p

You mean palmas (palm trees?)

I mean the pastry!

Para Mickey, la receta de las Palmeritas

Los ingredientes son estos:

Masa de hojaldre
Azúcar
Margarina
Un huevo batido

Como veis son unos ingredientes muy fáciles de tener en casa. Una cosa, no os pongo la cantidad de azúcar ni margarina porque eso es una cosa a vuestro gusto.

Preparación:

Se pone a descongelar la masa de hojaldre (en cualquier super se encuentra estas masas, pero si sois unos manitas y os sale bien esta compleja masa, adelante ), en una hora y media ya esta lista. Se echa harina en la mesa de trabajo y se procede a trabajar la masa con un rodillo hasta estirarla bien. Se corta por la mitad, en una de las láminas se le unta margarina y se le echa encima azúcar (espolvereado por toda la superficie). Ahora cogemos la otra mitad, y le ponemos en la parte de arriba (igual q antes) el huevo batido y azúcar. Ponemos la segunda lámina encima de la primera y apretamos un poquito. Ahora empezamos a enrollar desde los extremos hacia adentro, hasta que los dos rollitos se junte ( a la vez que vamos enrollando hay q poner un poco de huevo batido en los pliegues). A continuación cortamos trozos no muy grueso (menos de 1 cm) y vamos colocando en la bandeja del horno untada previamente de margarina. Después con una brochita, bañamos las palmeritas con huevo batido y luego se le echa más azúcar encima. Metemos la bandeja en el horno y ya está. Hay que tener cuidao con el horno y la temperatura de éste, porque a veces se queman muy pronto.

Bueno espero que pongais en práctica la receta y que os guste mucho!

Yes Booklady,

It was a rhetorical question, but I love it when rhetorical questions are answered. I posted the message in response to Ignacio's complaint about having to spend so much time researching for an answer to our questions. I've seen enough articles from him, so that I am satisfied that there are writers in Europe that oppose the U.S.'s actions in Iraq. I hope he doesn't feel it necessary, in reponding to this thread, to belabor himself with researching articles trying to prove that his opinions are more than just opinions. I'll freely and proudly concede to him that what I post here, are pure opinions.
My opinions are the opinions of a free-thinking person with no agenda. I love Spain, love Europe, know they have made very good, and very bad choices in history. So what? A country is not good or evil. Only individual's are. I can't see how anyone can compare the acts a country has to perform distasteful acts in order to secure it's survival, with the maniacal acts of people such as Saddam, Hitler, Stalin...etc. Come on! I don't even feel, though I suppose that Ignacio would, that Franco was even close to being a member of the above monsters.
As for even considering I'd accuse you of plagierism..How could I? You've always clearly given credit to your sources. And as I've said, I certainly enjoy your articles. When I read Ignacio's articles, it's like nails on a chalkboard, but I find it amusing that people, especially educated poeople, can reach such conclusions. When I was going to college, I also remember for our research papers, we must quote from authorities. But I see this thread as a battle of ideas, and, I will never let my enemy choose the site of the battle.
In short, I was merely inviting Ignacio to explain more clearly, without using sources, why he feels the U.S.'s policy in Iraq are so evil.

mickey:

I was joking, man! Since I couldn't give you the recipe, I just made a joke on "palmeras".

Palma=Palmera:

palmera.
(De palma).
1. f. Árbol de la familia de las Palmas, que crece hasta 20 m de altura, con tronco áspero, cilíndrico y de unos 3 dm de diámetro, copa sin ramas y formada por las hojas, que son pecioladas, de 3 a 4 m de largo, con el nervio central recio, leñoso, de sección triangular y partidas en muchas lacinias, duras, correosas, puntiagudas, de unos 30 cm de largo y 2 de ancho; flores amarillentas, dioicas, y por fruto los dátiles, en grandes racimos que penden a los lados del tronco, debajo de las hojas.
2. f. Pastel de hojaldre con forma de palmera.


Dicionario R.A.E.

Ignacio
I have just had a look at the last posts and found your request for me to help you. If you check my opening post, you`ll notice how FED UP I am on this matter. Along this passing year, I have posted tons of material on this issue, and frankly, I have come to the conclusion that it is hopeless. You can`t convince people when they have come to believe, for some reason I don`t understand, that their self-esteem and their sanity rests on the belief that their government, always, takes political decissions for ethical reasons, that "fair invasions" exist and that in one word, God is on our side.
You can check "This damned war (and coming to Spain)" at http://www.madridman.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000094&p=
You can see "Bowling for Columbine" at
http://www.madridman.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000099&p=
Or you can read the endless, stubborn, epical battle at "War on Iraq is pointless"
http://www.madridman.com/cgi-bin/ubbcgi/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=20&t=000072&p=

Wolf,
I can`t imagine anything as silly as a demonstration against a terrorist group. You don`t demonstrate against terrorists, you catch them, judge them and lock them. (No, concentration camps without trial are not an option either, bad news for Guantanamo). As to Al-Qaida, I wonder if they exist, they are puppets in the hands of Western secret services, or they are simply some sort of Bogey man tale.

Cristobo,

Now Al Qaeda is an "American fantasy?" Really now! Do you have an inkling as to how sophomoric that statement is? Rant on.

Wolf

Isn't it much better when we talk about palmeras?

Only if Palmeras are an American fantasy!!! My sanity and self-esteem are crumbling! And what's worse, Rush is a pill-popping dopehead. Woe is me.

Palmeritas! Something we can all agree!

creo sinceramente que USa debe tener mas respeto por el resto delmundo y el resto del mundo valorar los esfuerzos de USA en la historia.