Florida ballots - they did it again!!!

"Broward deputy supervisor of elections Gisela Salas said 60,000 absentee ballots, accounting for just over 5 percent of the electorate in the county north of Miami, were sent out between Oct. 7 and Oct. 8 to voters who would not be in town on election day"
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6630631

Not only in Miami, there are tens of thousands' registration irregularities in, at least, two other of the states that are not dedided for democrats or republicans yet.

OH BROTHER! Here we go again! MAYBE sometime NEXT YEAR we'll know who won the presidency - after all the lawsuits and investigations have finished. Ugh.

Saludos, MadridMan
OHIO: Another Battleground State

Here in Michigan,

What they call another battleground state, our Democratic governor got shut down by the court for trying to pull some registration shenanigans. Oh well, par for the course for that party.

The fix is in, again! Why is that suprising under the dictatorship of GW Bush? Bennito Mussolini, "The Father of Fascism," defined fascism as, ". . .rule by coporations." Exactly what GWB has given them. Democracy is dead in the USA, I am afraid, it is now just another (albiet horribily powerful and wealthy) banana republic.

Martin,

Don't you think your comments are a bit over the top? You really hate your own country don't you? Maybe you should seek citizenship elsewhere, and renounce your American citizenship.

Just a suggestion if it would make you happier.

On the ballots. At this point there's nothing to really be concerned about. The ballots are in the mail, as they say.

Wolf

Yawwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwn!

Yup! Looks like Florida's Governor Jeb Bush (President Bush's brother) might be up to his old tricks again as in 2000. Too bad President Bush doesn't have brothers in Ohio, Michigan, and Wisconsin too. He'd be 100% CERTAIN to win then! hehehe...

Saludos, MadridMan

MadridMan,

Next time Mr. Heinz comes to Ohio for hunting, please keep him there and not let him go to Michigan.

BTW, whatever happened to the Columbus sniper?

MM,
You said Jeb Bush was up to his old tricks again. Please tell me, when did he stop?

I didn't see anywhere in the article that was linked, where the slow ballot delivery had anything to do with the Governor.

Since there doesn't seem to be any links that show he may have had anything to do with these ballots, why are people casting allusions in that direction?

Personally, I wasn't a bit pleased with what happened in Florida four years ago, but I can't in any way consider that as part of this ballot issue.

What strikes me as rather stupid is that the Democratic machine down there didn't do something to "insure" that the ballots were sent out sooner if it was going to be a problem.

If they didn't monitor what was happening, and participate in the process, they are totally ignorant.

As far as the post office... I certainly wouldn't think that the rank and file people who work there would go along with any "Republican master plan for victory," since the vast majority of postal workers happen to be Democrats.

Wolf

Sorry MM, but it looks like your fair state of Ohio is sharing top billing with Florida! Folks in Ohio registered Mary Poppins, in this " Coke for Votes " effort!!

Bookie,

Do you think Jeb Bush was behind these ballots in Ohio? Conspirator theorists would buy into it.

You have to like the title of this thread. "They did it again!" Who is "they?" Did what again? I guess that's what conspiracy buffs always see. If it wasn't Jed Bush, it had to be aliens from some far off galaxy who are Republicans...

I think the fact is that there are going to be mistakes made everywhere, but by and large, there isn't anything too big that will slip through the cracks. There's too many watch dogs out there making sure things stay on the up and up.

I think Florida will go for Kerry this time around. It may be close but I give him the edge because of the fiasco four years ago.

The problem is, can he carry Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio? If he can't he's gonna lose. If he does, where do we go with a President who is a Democrat and the Senate and House controlled by the Republicans.

As Monty Hall would say; "Let's make a deal!"

Wolf

People accusing governors or the President of manipulating local elections must not understand that the election process is mostly managed locally by local boards. They are pretty independent and would flare at any outside interference. Everyone seems to forget the famous "hanging chad" ballot in Florida was approved by a Democratically controlled board. The absentee ballots are another thing. PA's governor is trying to prevent overseas ballots from counting. Why? Most overseas ballots are from the military and support Bush 3 to 1. But when you are counting millions of votes there are bound to be errors, and in something this close it's inevitable that some people would try to influence the vote.

Of course if the Democratic party had picked a quality candidate it wouldn't be close.

ernie

Those theory conspiracists are so stupid, he he...
But just for the sake of discussion, let´s see again the title of the thread: "Florida ballots: they did it again!!!"
It is a very ambiguous title, which implies
1st-We don`t know who did it, after all.
2nd-We don`t know exactly what they did, either.
You ask, Wolf, what did they do. OK, in a nutshell, how about a filthy bungle? How about an entangled, unefficient, bad managed and un-clean ellection process?
How about the leading democracy of the world, being run by a man appointed by a council of twelve sages? (well, I don`t know how many members do sit in the Supreme Court).
How about the letter that a Senegalese man sent to Time Magazine, offering to send Senegalese experts on clean ellections to the US?
I have seen in this discussion the same old gap between left and right. Now conservatives seem to be totally sure that there was nothing wrong in Florida 2000 ellections, good for them. Otherwise, they would have to believe George W.Bush became the president through a coup, but sure conservatives would never let their political views blind them against such a life or death issue.
There is something appealing in conspiracy theories. It is not so easy to let them apart: some people believe there was something wrong and obscure in all the 2000 ellections, others believe that numberless hordes of terrorists are working to conquer the world, out of sheer hatred against good and freedom.

Cristobo,

You totally missed the point. What did "they" do, and to "whom?" The people staffing the election board in that particular area are predominantly Democrats, so therefore you must mean "they" would sabotage their own area's election.

Then, what is it they did? Did they drop the ballots off at the post office too late? Did they "arrange" for the post office to delay mailing even though the post office wouldn't do that? So... our elections are rigged because the ballots went out a little late, as a worse case scenario. If it would have any effect it would have been to the advantage of the Democrats in this case, since the claim in the last election was that the number of absentee ballots that favor the Republicans far outweigh the Democrats. "They," as you refer to them, would only be hurting themselves, but it wouldn't be a good "conspiracy theory" if you admitted that would it?

So... like I ask... Who is they? Second question... What did they do?

On the question of numbers when it comes to terrorists, you obviously have a handle on how many there are. So... tell me; How many are there?

Your charge was "ambiguous." I also believe you do it intentionally to create a discussion on the issue. I have no problem with that. I don't think anyone does. Even if we strongly disagree with what you said.

Wolf

Wolf: I am with you if Martin hates the US that much, he needs to walk into the US Emabassy and renounce his citizenship. They have the papers to do it in stock. I will point out that even Oswald had second thoughts after he had renounced his citizenship in the "Workers Paradise of the USSR" and went home with the help of the US taxpayers. Martin the address of the Embassy has not changed in many years it is 210 Calle Serrano, I have been in it several times.

I am also with you Wolf about who this mystical "they" is.? I have never personally met one of these mystical memebers of the crowd of "they" but I have been hearing a lot about "they" now for over 52 years.

Martin can always do that if he wants to, and he can decide by hmself whether he ever wanted to do that and the moment he wanted to do it.

But being critical does not mean hate, sometimes you critizise something you love because you want it to improve.

Wolf,

I like the aliens rigging the election theory. Fits right in with Halloween.

Ignacio,

Don't you think that it's pretty hateful calling the U.S. a fascist state? Grant you, it wouldn't be if it were true, but c'mon, no one is being hauled off and shot for political differences....that's an absurdity, and anyone who would utter such a lie, either hates this country, or is utterly irresponsible. I prefer to believe it was just an irresponsible utterance.

Gazpacho,

Like you, I just about disagree with everything Martin says, but in his defense, I will say that because he is/was an American citizen, and familiar with the way we do things, he should be able to say anything about our country - good, bad or indifferent.
To paraphrase Larry Flynt, another person who I cannot agree with except for this one thing -
Freedom of expression is not to defend the thing you love, but the thing you hate.
As for the vote here in Florida, let's see if all us clueless provincial hicks can figger out hoo 2 ellect.

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Well, Gazpacho. Twenty years ago, maybe I didn't know the USA the way I know it nowadays, but back then , i used to believe they were the freest country in the world. An example to follow regarding civil rights. Maybe I was wrong, or maybe it was.

Now, I am glad not to be there. Political Correctness has ruined much of the speech liberty. Politic-economical groups control the media and the CIA and other agencies control your mail (at least email), those who dissent are called traitors, and so on.

It may be calling it a fascist state is exagerated. But how much exagerated depends on everyone's views. I must mainly agree with Martin that it's much closer to a totalitarist system than the old one, the one who gained international prestige with the defense of Human RIghts.

And I (although I am just guessing) believe Martin would be a faithful defender of the old USA, that one where all votes counted, a person could have his private mail, and information was diverse and not unilateral (although in the economic and military aspects some- including me- will keep on disliking it). That's the USA that once leaded the free world and that many would like to see again. The USA are a giant that can do a lot of good if well leaded, and a lot of bad if misleaded.

Wanting it to be better and change, and hating what it is today doesn't mean you hate the concept but it's present state. If you had a child who became a drug addict (for example), you could be furious about him being so, but still be loving your son and wishing him to recover.

Pinguino,

You are missing the point entirely. I didn't say that Martin doesn't have a right to say what's on his mind. What made you think I implied this?

Desert Dweller suggests that Martin hates our country, Ignacio disagrees, and I think Ignacio is wrong because Martin irresponsibly calls the U.S. a fascist state. I didn't say he didn't have a right to say this, I just mean that he obviously, by making this statement, has issues.

Ignacio,

Political correctness in America, usually refers to the beliefs of the liberals in this country. For example it's politically correct to hate wealth, to support abortion, to want to outlaw guns, to believe that minorities have more rights than the rest of us. This is the current meaning of "political correctness".

Gazpacho,

Mea culpa, my friend.

Cristobo,

You said there is something appealing in conspiracy theories. I have to disagree. You see, most conspiracy theories - at least in this country - always seem to point out that the Bush/Cheney/Clinton/Republican/Democrat/Enron/Halliburton cadre are stooges for the Council on Foreign Relations/Saudi oil Sheiks/Bildeburger/One World Order totalitarians.
And frankly, I find that all very boring.
Instead, could you please enlighten us - or me at least - on what is going on in Spain...for example what the oldest man since Methuselah - Fraga - is doing? What about everyone's favorite bigmouthed sociopath Blas Piñar? And what about that Opus Dei, huh? What evil machinations are they doing these days?

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Pinguino
Funny that you ask
The most trendy conspiracy theories in Spain today are those who claim that the socialists, the PSOE, were involved in the 11M attack. The softest version says that the PSOE has good informers in the police, and that they were told about the plans of the terrorists prior to the attack. Then these politicians decided not to report to anyone, choosing instead to get profit from the massacre.
The tough version of this theory states, more or less, that the 11M attack was not run by Islamic terrorists, but that it was an "inside work" intended to give the socialists the victory in 14th of March ellections.
when I have more spare time I will tell you about the almost-secret organization that Aznar belongs, the "Legionarios de Cristo", some catholic version of Skull and Bones. Quite scary...

Gazpacho:

Well, yes (here, too) left wing parties are more prone to emphatize political correctness, like in racial or sex issues.

But PC has spread, and now, stating anything that a certain social group doesn't like is condemned by any of the parties all the same in the name of the PC.

Anyway, it's just an example of something I dislike. As I said, I was guessing on his motivations, and I don't pretend to know them. I was just giving examples on why one can dislike the present state of political, economical, etc., behaviour of a country, and still be loyal to the ideals that gave birth to it, and from which it has separated from.

Cristobo,

I can't believe you'd attack an organization like the Legionaires of Christ without finding out the facts first. It should be beneath your dignity.

The link I've posted is to the Legionaries site, and might clear up a lot of the misconceptions you've obviously taken from other sources.
[url=lhttp://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/index.phtmlike][url=lhttp://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/index.phtmlike][url=lhttp://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/index.phtmlike]lhttp://www.legionariesofchrist.org/eng/index.phtmlike[/url][/url][/url]

Although I'm not a Legionaire myself, I know a couple of lay people who are, and their work is exemplary, and actually represents exactly what you talk about in your statements about helping the disadvantaged. Yet, because it's part of "The Church," it is wrong?

I suppose, if you want to stretch it, the Legionaires who are Priests might be a bit scary for you. They do wear black robes, and chant at times. But that doesn't really make them scary, does it?

Wolf

I confess my wrong
I don`t know much about the Legionarios de Cristo
My apologies. I only was telling about ugly rumours, and certainly there are a couple of them concerning the Legionarios, just as there are about the Opus Dei, the Masons and yes, Skull and Bones.
I am not in a position to hold a debate on a subject that I completely ignore. All I know, and all I was trying to say, is both left and right have their own obsessions, their own "conspiracy theories", and their own shortcuts to find easy explanations for complicated matters. OK?

Pinguino,

Yes, that's what it is about conspiracy theories I don't like. They're boring. Well, and idiotic too. Any attempt to disprove them ends up with trying to prove a negative. The repeaters of the theory rely upon the recipient to find the salient truths on their own instead of providing them. How cowardly and intellectually lazy.

Cristobo,

The PSOE, in as much as I disagree with their philosophy, I wouldn't take for face value that they planned these attacks for political gain. I just wish that you on the left would give conservative leaders equal benefit of the doubt. Fat chance of that though, isn't there?

Wolf,

I just looked up the link you provided for legionaries of Christ. And though I'm not catholic, my wife is, they sure don't look very nefarious to me. I wish I had their spirituality.

Cristobo,

Thanks for clearing up the issue on Legionaires. It's appreciated.

On Skull & Bones - a link

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5244.htm

It is a secret society on the campus of Yale, and does have far reaching effects. It may or may not be "fraternal," but I do know that both Bush & Kerry are members. That said, anyone who is important through birth, or financial influence, ends up a part of the group.

Not surprising, most members of the group are heavy investors in the Carlyle Group. Therein does lie a few questions. They are the ones that concern me most. Their influence is enormous.

Within the link there's the name of a book that has been published by Robbins. It would make a good read if a person wanted to know more about this group.

Then... a quick study on the Caryle Group might be in order. They are multinational, and of great interest.

Could Skull & Bones or the Carlyle Group influence an election? You bet! They probably do, if in no other way, through money contributed to hopefuls. But, I wonder if it doesn't go a bit beyond that. This is one area that I think influence peddling is taken to it's maximum level of honesty, and possibly beyond.

And yes, they could influence the final results in Florida and other swing states this time around. Money always speaks I'm afraid.

Just my opinion, nothing more.

Wolf

I am by no means an expert in Legionarios de Cristo. I heard it's name for the first time about two years ago, and I haven't investigated at all.

However, the inputs I get, about their rules teaching kids and some other comments make me be very skeptical towards them. The scarce info I got points towards fanatism and obscurantism.

I'm sure many of you have heard/read reference to this - but an offshoot - or subsidiary of the Annenberg Foundation (a 100% non-politcal organization - even if I spelled it incorrectly) has come up with something like 35 possible scenarios of how the vote could go; including a dead even split within the elctoral college - i.e, Chaney would cast the final vote.

None of this reflects the actual vote of those voting - would someone please explain to me why the legitimacy of the electoral college could not be put to the voters? Yes, in 1700's it made sense - we are now in the 21st century and, IMO, the elctoral college per se negates the one man - one vote heart and core of the constitution,

Please - no lectures - nor am I trying to start an ideological arguement - I'm seriously asking for facts and logic as to what it would take and how it could be implemented to dispense w/ the electoral college and implement a true one person = one vote situation.

Wolf, you were right about Florida thus far.

According to the Washinton Times the candidates are head-to head in the six contested states, with Florida and Ohio right now going to Kerry:

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20041101-061243-3628r.htm

What I have found interesting in watching these polls over the last four to five weeks is that while Bush's statistics tend to go down by a few points, Kerry's does not go up by the same amount of points. Leads me to think that among the possibilities is that these folks may end up voting for a third party candidate, i.e. Libertarian; or, worse, these folks just are not going to make up their minds and likely end up not voting.

According to the political pundits, it will be likely that this election will have the most numbers of voters showing up at the polls! That's a wonderful development.

Either way, if the election remains statistically even, it seems unlikely that a clear winner will be announced; the thousands of lawyers that both parties have hired will see to that.

In my county, the supervisor of elections and the election Board, all democrats, have hired court reporters to take down all transactions at all polling centers!!!

Puna,

Some of us think that people were smarter back in the 1700's. They certainly didn't have to suffer our sorry excuse for an education system. The writings of our founding fathers are profound compared to political statements made by any side today.

Oh my gosh. Would you really want the current political leaders of today messing with the constitution? I don't even want my side changing the constitution.

Puna: You and I don't aggree on much, but on the issue of the Electoral College like you I think it is something that has out lived it's usfulness. I also agree that I would not any of the current Washington "insiders" tampering with the constitution. I am one of many that feels there are many changes that should be made to the constitution as it stands now.

Wolf, it looks like Florida has gone to President Bush!!

http://enight.dos.state.fl.us/20041102_DET_PRE.html

County % Reporting 95.3%
Bush Cheney 3,514,112 = 51.7%
Kerry Edwards 3,222,685 = 47.4%

The others...
Peroutka Baldwin 6,138
Badnarik Campagna 10,938
Cobb LaMarche 3,669
Harris Trowe 2,619
Brown Herbert 3,372
Nader Camejo 29,919
----
The Republicans are claiming that about 100,000 or so ballotts are still outstanding in Dade/Broward and Palm Beach counties.

Also the ACLU is forcing the Superintendent of Elections in Broward county to send out the 5,000 ballots that were not sent out properly.

---
Regardless, its a clear Bush win in Florida!

I couldn't be happier with the way this is going. I am sure that one of the most depressed men on earth right now is Chirac, even more than Kerry. I have been known to refer to him, Zapatero, and Shroder as Europe's Three Stooges.

Keep going Jr. Your doing real good.

Desert,it looks like Jurnior will win after all. Fox News called Ohio for Bush, and since CNN called Alaska for Bush the number is 269. Bush needs one more electoral vote to win!

Desert Dweller:

I dont know why CHirac should be depressed. The fact that Bush was elected would be just bad for USA-EU relationships, which is bad for Chirac and the EU(up to a point) and is bad for Bush and the USA (up to a point).

For example, you cannot hope for any substantial finantial EU help in Irak (specially since Blair, unlike Bush, wont make it again), while Kerry's dialogant (towards "allies") attitude would have given him support. Keep on summing deficit!

I`m with Desert Dweller. I am happy that Bush won the elections. I can`t explain it properly, but It`s something like "Let`s finish what we have started". Instead of a dull, flat personality like that of Kerry, let`s have four more years of excitement and fun with G.W.Bush and his gallery of hawkish freaks. Irak is not enough, let`s go for Iran! Chop down the sequoias and pump the hell out of Alaska! The greenhouse effect is an urban legend, and so it is the oil crisis! Give war a chance!!
As Fred Reed put it (he is my guru, at www.fredoneverything.net), it is not worth worrying about anything, just lie down, relax, watch the final collapse of civilization and enjoy the show.
We are going to have a great time. I am very happy to be living these times...

Bookie,

I'm really surprised about Florida to be honest. I believed that it would go to Kerry. At least, for the sake of the Florida electorate, it's a clear cut majority so there won't be any questions.

The same actually applies to Ohio, and the fact that Kerry is "hanging on," waiting for the final tally isn't going to change the fact that Bush has won the majority of votes there as well.

Like it or not, we have Bush for four more years. Now it's time for everyone to rally behind him and hope that he makes the right decisions.

Since it doesn't appear that the Republicans will have 60 seats in the Senate, there's at least a "watch dog" group still around in DC to at least make waves when they are needed.

What I wonder most is if the allegations and charges made during this campaign are going to leave both parties totally at outs with each other, and create an even worse political climate in DC than we've seen. That would be very discouraging.

Wolf

Sorry, guys, but it seems it's not over yet (unless CNN info is incorrect):

Data

Not so fast everybody. I am just as upset about the way this is going as you are. I went to bed about 12:30 Arizona time and Jr. was short several electorals then. Like all of you I am a firm believer that the winner should be clear. The Sec of State for Ohio is saying that under current law he has ten days to declare a winner. :o

Reply to all,
The words of the famous American philosopher
YOGI BERRA, "It ain't over until it's over"!

Ignacio,

CNN being wrong is hardly an event. Sorry guys, I guess Democratic Michigan couldn't pull it off. Well, you know the situation here. I just can't believe so many people would vote for Mr. Heinz. I think next election, we're going to have our butts handed to us on a platter.

Well, it was just one source of info. Several others said the same, including spanish international EFE agency, and at least one american newspaper.

Iknow those because a friend sent me a whole dossier this morning.

And they were right. Bush hadn't won yet, and I will never understand why americans don't wait till every vote is counted if there were one chance in a million that the results may change. What would you think if it happened that 90% of the remaining votes were for Kerry and he had more electors? Would Bush resign? Don't think so.

Blah blah blah blah blah. Election Shmelection. Voter turnout, voter fraud, anyway you slice it, the only thing we learned today is this: There is a culture war brewing in America. And it seems that the bible-thumping, cross burning, xenophobic turned out to vote en masse to make sure that the gays know their place. It's great to have a faith-based president, rather than a reality-based one, no?

God Bless America...we're gonna need it.

To be true, I obviously feel absolutely closer to Kerry than Bush, and yet, I was thinking that, no matter what the results were, and who was in charge, things wouldn't change that much.

And then I realized that what this elecions have been good for is for the americans to side themselves: with or against genocides. The majority decided with. Before, they could have alledged they didn't know Junior was going to bomb Afghanistan and Irak to ashes. NOw they know and still vote him. That makes them just as guilty.

I am only sorry for the high number of people, precisely from the more sophisticated areas of the country, the coasts, who will be considered in the same lot.

Ignacio: You are so right, we that live inland from the coasts are just a bunch of stupid low life hicks,all we want to do is kill babies and drop bombs. There is nothing that gives us inland idiots more pleasure than to see masses of starving people. If there is to many of them the ideal thing to do, rather than taking them food, would be to kill them all as it is cheaper that way. Yeah you are right once again, we Americans are all just a bunch of stupid Imperialist murderers.

I just cannot figure out how I made it 52 years without you to show me the falacy of my ways. Thank God I met Ignacio.

It is quite a shame that we don't have someone like Ignacio for president to show us the error of our way. Why, he could show us numerous examples of more humane cultures that help other more needful countries like.....unh?....well.....let's see....huh!

Love you Iggy.

Oh yeah,

Silvita, I thank the Lord for the Bible Belt states, since my own don't seem to be worth a damn when it comes to elections. Michigan is hardly a liberal state but we just can't seem to get over our obsession with Democrats.

Ignacio,

Your remarks that those who voted for Bush are as guilty as he is and that you felt sorry for those "from the more sophisticated areas of the country, the coasts, who will be considered in the same lot" were to say the least, irresponsible.
Allow me to explain. 1) my wife, who is the kindest and most giving person I know, voted for Bush. At the the last minute, I changed my vote from a third party to Bush. Now, I will neither apologize for that nor explain my movitivations, but I can assure you, my friend, that we are no more genocidal imperialists than you are.
2) I am from one of those coastal states - California - and the reason I left...no, fled...is because of the existing "us and them" mentality which many people have there. Don't believe it? Just look at the garbage produced by Hollywood where only the "beautiful people" are shown. If you are less than beautiful, rich, or have celebrity status, then you are pond scum. These places are NOT sophisticated. They are, in fact, quite the opposite. The very people (the poor, the disenfranchised, minorities) these effete snobs presume to champion are the very ones they detest the most.
All people are products of their environment, and in this post 9-11 world we live in, the American psyche has undergone changes - such is our American environment. I don't expect you to understand that anymore than you would expect me to fully comprehend the Spanish/Vasco/Catalan psyche.
Don't think that I am taking a patronizing attitude with you. From what I've read of some of your posts, I believe that you are indeed an intelligent and kind person. But you are incorrect this time.

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Some interesting comments by world leaders who are involved in the ongoing fight against terrorism, after Bush was reelected:

I read Putin's statement with amusement. If we didn't "give in to terrorism," who would he be referring to as having done exactly that?

It's a funny thing about the Russians. The US argues with them all the time, but when you scratch the surface, and see what they really believe in their hearts, it isn't all that much different than our beliefs here in the States.

Wolf

Pinguino:

Thanks for your input. I won't compete with you about knowledge of Californian mentality, since I am not so knowledgeable on the USA as to write on your idiosincrasy state by state.

Of course, I won't either try to guess what you and/or your wife feel.

And however, the fact is (let's put it this way) that the world believes the USA have shown it's worse, imperialistic, warmonger, unfair face under Junior, and thought the americans wouldn't agree, and would punish hin at the ballots. But you americans re-elected him, and that's validating his politics, his destroying unarmed (almost) countries, his massive bombings that have made more than 100.000 or 150.000 innocent deaths and even more seriously injured in Irak, plus (if I am not wrong) 1.000 american soldiers dead, 7.000 with amputations, and 30.000 injured, plus sabotaging the UN, not signing Kioto protocol for ecology (we all cause catastrophes in other countries with the grenhouse effect, because of climate changes, and don't pay a dime in compensations), like so many things.

Anyone can have their own opinion, but if you give your vote to Junior, you are giving the vote to massacres, against ecology, against the UN, against punishment to the ones that fooled you to push for a war, ...

No matter how compassive you are or you think you are. You are suppoting this, and all the world knows it now.

Thanks for your kind words, and your civilized debate attitude, not always usual here.

Wolf:

It's just a matter of: You don't get in my backyard and I won't get into yours. Or even more:

When you are in a crusade against "terrorists", whatever you consider so, and you are using shameful methods, it's good to support other powers that do the same, and they'll support you helping isolate track and eventually destroy your enemies as far as you help isolate, track and eventually destroy theirs (chechens in this case), regarless that you may think they are right and are being exterminated and hunted unfairly.

The same Aznar did, selling his loyalty to the USA in their supposed antiterrorist (and in fact "terror") crusade for their support against ETA.

That's, shamely, dirty politics, where morals can be surpassed by convenience.

Let`s face it. There is a very wide gap, as wide as the Atlantic Ocean. We, Americans and Europeans, come from the same roots, but have evolved into different branches. We all write with the latin alphabet, dress similar costumes, speak indo-european languages; we all respect Christian tradition and the heritage of Athens and Rome. But that is all. I plain can`t understand you more than I understand the Chinese or the Arabs. What else can I say? I am puzzled.
I don`t trust much democracy, and I believe soon or late real power (that is, the power of banks, lobbies and big companies) finds its way to handle elections and politicians. I know Kerry wouldn`t make much difference. But anyway, simply and respectfully, I can`t understand how can a reasonable, adult, honest and moral person vote for George W.Bush. It just goes beyond my understanding.
I heard once that, during the Viet Nam war, demonstrators used to shout: "Hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?". I liked that, it was brave, it was defying. For once in history, the real provoker of the horror had to face his responsability. For once, the man who disguised war and massacres with beautiful speeches, had to watch straight at his crimes.
Those demonstrators were also Americans. Those I can understand. Those I admire. But today? Today I am puzzled.

I have a question for Pinguino. With all due respect, please don`t take it as patronizing or anything. I just am asking out of sheer curiosity.
There are some sources now which claim some 100 000 people have died in Irak during the last year.
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=st.../iraq_deaths_dc
Let`s suppose some 10 000 of them were children. Now here comes my question:
Was it worth? You say your wife is merciful and decent. Does she support this horror? If not, why has she voted for Bush? Would she say "10 000 babies? It is OK for me, it is a worth paying price. I will sleep as a baby tonight"
God almighty, 100 000 people!!!!

Cristobo,

Since this article comes from the media, is there any reason to believe that it's true?
I didn't bother reading it, since all the articles you point out, I can detect there anti-U.S. bias in the first paragraph. Hardly the voice of reason.

But let's say 100,000 people died. What is the cost of freedom?

Cristobo quote "simply and respectfully, I can`t understand how can a reasonable, adult, honest and moral person vote for George W.Bush. It just goes beyond my understanding."

You speak for 48% of America.

How right you are Cristobo -
Ignacio - believe me - not all native Californians think like certain people on this board.
In fact, California is historically one of the (if not the most) liberal state in the US.
And as a native Californian - most of us are very damn proud of that fact.

Cristobo,

A couple of quick points in relation to why the US voted as they did.

The Vietnam War. Wrong? Maybe. But, at the time, the Communists were using the domino effect to topple governments. One by one, nations were falling to them through outside influences coming from neighboring Communist countries. Kruschev even went so far as to say; "We'll bury you!", in the UN, and meant every word of it.

So, where would we take a stand? The Berlin Wall, but not in Asia, because those people didn't matter?

It's easy to chastise people from the past when you don't consider the political climate of the era. We'd just gotten past the Cuban missle crisis, and we weren't in a position to allow Kruschev's "master plan" to work its magic.

If the US had abandoned Asia, we would also be prone to abandon Western Europe. Now, that would be a price that would be paid by everyone on the continent. By and large, Europeans wanted us there, but in Asia... Why? It was "so far away," and we were better served being in Europe.

I'm afraid that's not the way the US went, and to be honest, I wish we would have stayed the course in Vietnam, and won that damned thing. Why? Because the growth of Communism would have been halted at that point. I think we allowed left wing mentality to strike us down and it caused a lot of dictators in the world to begin believing they were beyond the reach of the American forces because of it.

So, why Iraq? It's not going to be Vietnam. We walked out and abandoned the people in Nam. It's not going to happen in Iraq. We're there, and staying there, because the people of the US voted for the President who said we planned on "staying the course." Maybe we learned from our mistakes in Vietnam, and maybe we know that the only thing dictators and rogue regimes understand is brute force. Just maybe we're right for being there, even if we went in under the wrong premise.

But worse. The UN. I'm watching tens of thousands of people being slaughtered in Africa right now, and the UN isn't doing a damned thing to help these people, or stop it from happening. I don't see Europe really concerned about it either.

So, in your beliefs that we are killing innocents in Iraq, where do you put the genocide that is "acceptable" by your definition in Africa in perspective. I'm afraid I just don't accept that as the way caring societies act.

No. I disagree with why we went into Iraq, but I don't disagree with Hussein being toppled. He killed more people each year who were innocent than the terrorists will kill during the course of our being there.

Then again, why aren't you blaming the terrorists for the deaths in Iraq? Obviously they're the ones who are initiating the action, and beheading people. Please. Tell me why it is that you feel terrorists and their agendas are okay, and they can murder innocents, and then say that any humanitarian efforts by the US is wrong, and go so far as to abandon the people of Africa?

As for you not trusting democracies, I can understand that perfectly. One should never trust anything they don't understand.

Wolf

Wolf,

You're amazing. It's obvious that history didn't exist before Cristobo was born, and then, only in an antiseptic, linear, Euclidean world.

Puna,

You're right, California is the most liberal state in the U.S. bar none.

Wolf,

Once again you have earned the title of Most Erudite and Logical person on this Board!

As we all know, I don't always agree with your comments but I always admire the thinking process behind them plus your ability to explain what led you to your comments.

:o You guys are making me blush! I try to be fair minded on issues. Sometimes it isn't easy because we do draw from our own pasts.

My parents always taught me that you have to look at all issues from both sides before you pick your position. I think they were the greatest people I've ever met. They taught me reason.

Wolf

Cristobo:
War is not pretty, lets get that out of the way now. When you are dealing with a person of the quality of Hussein and all other avenues have been exhausted then war is the only answer. This is the man who had gassed his own people, had torture chambers, and a mass of other atrosities. The over whelming majority of the US population does not like the fact that we have our troops in Iraq, to include me. A man like Hussein, it is only a matter of time until he will do something on the international level. Had the world stoped Hitler in Munich, or at least stoped him sooner, there is the possiblity that WWII would have not been so catastrophic. Wheather you want to admitt it or not, Hussein is of the same type as Hitler. One of the main reasons that France and Germany were so much against the invasion of Iraq is because they were both trading with Iraq, against the international agreements of trade bans. Now look at both of their economies.

You will remember that when Hussein was first over thrown the Iraqi people greeted all military force very warmly. The vast majority of the Iraqi people are a peace loveing people that want to get on with life and rebuild their country, and enter the world market place. It is not the occupping force that are kidnapping people, and beheading them. It is not the occuping forces that are on a daily basis using car bombs. It is not the disires of the majority of the Iraqi people that this be going on either. It is the radical Muslim Clerics that are advocating this sort of conduct. When the military attacks something, it is done with men wearing distinct uniforms and rank insignias and clearly marked vehicles so that anyone watching knows who is who. When terrorist make a move they are dressed in plain clothes using plain vehicles.

Ignacio made the comment that the American people by reelecting Bush endorsed the bombing of Afganistan and Iraq. That they did not know that he was going to do it the first time so we cannot be faulted, but did know his intentions the second time so we are as guilty as Bush this time for having reelected him. I guess that Ignacio feels the world would be a better place with the Taleban still in charge in Afganistan with all their human right abuses and harboring the Alqueda. He must also seems to feel that Iraq would be a better place with Hussein still in charge of Iraq.

I read a lot of attacks on this and other web cites of the American foreign policy. For some unexplained reason nobody seems to be criticle of the radicle muslims that are advocating car bombings and kidnappings and beheadings. When an oil pipline is sabotaged, dont think the US military did that.

When the US makes a move everyone knows about it and who is responsible for that move. Twenty four hours a day, seven days a week, we can tell you where George W. Bush is. Can anyone tell us where Bin laden is?? Our leader is not hiding in a cave, and he wont be found cowering, hiding in a spider hole either.

You posed some good questions and they were not taken offensive Cristobo. I hope I have addressed them in a nonoffensive manner.

You can show me as the peace loving redneck that voted for GWB and owns an assualt rifle, living in the desert of Arizona.

Puna,

I too, am a native Californian and proud of it. I am completely put off by those who refer to it as the "Granola State: land of fruits, nuts, and flakes." But you see, I grew up in a part of Los Angeles that for all the "enlightenment" the inhabitants loudly proclaimed they had, they were still intolerant snobs.
Besides, California, unfortunately, is not how it used to be.
BTW, what brought you to NC?

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Puna's geographical bio/CV:

Southern Cal (when it was nice ) to 1) Sydney, Australia (via Melbourne)to 2) Honolulu, Hawaii to 3) San Francisco, CA to 4) Honolulu to 5) Boston to 6) Charlotte -

in order of: 1) choice 2) divorce + great place to raise a child 3) job, same child but older, 4) cost of private college (one of the Claremont schools) so an offer re job I couldn't refuse 5) same job - new location 6) not being able to cope with six months a year when it's dark at 9:00AM and again at 4:00PM + wearing far too many layers in order not to freeze to death -

Plus as many trips to Spain along the way as possible!

Sure. After all, the states where democrats win are the most developed, and in the ones who follow in these parameters are usually tied like Florida.

For example, maybe this is false, but in the media these days we get the info that:

- For example, in Iowa, the industrial cities voted for Kerry whereas the country voted for Bush.

- And that the typical Bush voter is white/male/religious/living in small towns, ... Of course not all of his voters have exactly all the parts of the profile, it's an average.

If this is right (and I believe it is), we have a bipolar country, whose contradictions must be solved but never forgotten to unify in "the dark side of the force". There is no trade between the Empire and Skywalker rebels, no intermediate point. Liberties must be protected, and peace enforced, and ecology respected, ...

Now, although I like Kerry's suposedly progress mentallity, I believe Mrs. Clinton would have done much better, and now there is a new star that I like much more Barack Obama, at least by the few things I am beginning to learn about him.

Heads up! I know how you feel, I felt like that the second time PP won. There is a new date in 4 years, you'll have better leaders, and more litter will have been aroused about Junior.

The 2004 election was baffling in the sense that the polls did not accurately predict this election. Zogby.com had an apologetic note on their site because they had given Senator Kerry the election by an overall majority.

Here is a link to an article of USA Today that shows country voting patterns, this may help you Ignacio in understanding the dilemma of the impossibility of generalizing a state in the U.S.

Source: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/vote2004/countymap.htm


This article also shows the same comparison of the 2000 election.

As many Spaniards, I’m glad that Bush has won the elections, not for the fact itself, but because the anti American Spaniards of Zapatero (and his anti-sistema separatist partners) had bet by the defeat of Bush.

For Spain, the attitude of Zapatero on tv today is a real calamity , appealing to the good friendship between España and the USA after the elections!!

Thank you all for your responses. Yeah, Desert Dweller, I have tried hard to be respecful, and I am grateful that everybody replied in the same mood. I am aware that these are touchy matters.
Wolf, if democracy means the chance to choose, once in four years, between Tweedledum and Tweedledee, then you can bet I don`t get the point of all the thing. If democracy means that the law chamber refuses to take a stance against the president when necessary, then I don`t understand it. If democracy means that the media are controlled by the same people who lobby the government, while the public remains sunk in decepction and ignorance, then I damn oppose democracy.
I agree that the Domino theory was a key argument to justify the war in Vietnam. I am sure many people believed that nonsense in those days. But I am afraid you are insinuating that there was something TRUE about that heap of lies.
Wolf, eventually the US left Vietnam, the commies came to control the country...and nothing happened. Thirty years later, you see, the world doesn`t suffer under the yoke of a new Stalin. Khruschev had a big, dirty mouth, but he wasn`t too reliable as a prophet. I see you think that you left too early. Of course twelve years of bombings and horrors were not enough. So bad that no one had the guts to drop a couple of nukes over the lemonheads. If it counts, I regard the US as the moral winners of the war: you killed some 2000 000 people, while they only slayed 50 000 of your GIs. Go, go, go!
I am now reading "War dispatches", from a Michael Herr. He is not by any means a leftist, as far as I can see, but really, after reading the book, it seems quite hard to rest on vague geostrategical theories to justify things like Vietnam. I am not any historian, but I would swear the dictatorships that flourished in the 70s and 80s would have appeared anyway, had you won the war. The Iranians, for example, didn`t seem too eager to stand the Shah for any longer, Vietnam or not Vietnam.

Cristobo,

If you ever find that country or world or universe that is run the way you would like it, please let me know, I want to emigrate there. Meanwhile, here I am, stuck in reality.

BTW, what's a "law chamber"?

Yeah, "the world doesn't suffer under the yoke of a new Stalin", just the people of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos. Who are they anyway?

Law chamber is wrong? er...don`t know, "parliament" would be more accurate?
Yeah, who are those yellows after all? Please, Gazpacho, it is not me who had fun shooting from a helicopter at unarmed peasants. It is not me who beheaded some ten enemies, put the heads on the ground with a cigarette on each mouth and then took a pic.
In real world, you can`t transform all of a sudden. You can`t make a perfect democracy out of a country like Laos, just snapping your fingers. Laos, Viet Nam and Cambodia sure would have suffered dictatorships in any case: and rightist dictators are not better than commies. See Suharto, or Ferdinand Marcos for instance.
The horrors of Pol Pot make me shudder in horror, but no one moved a finger, after all, to stop his genocide. So I infer that wars are not started to rescue people in danger.

Cristobo,

I'm sorry. It just doesn't do any good to "discuss" an issue with you. Your anti-American sentiments, and disdain for all governments is straight out of the anarchists handbook.

To be honest, I feel like I've entered an a$$ kicking contest against a one-legged man. Your views are so stilted, and skewed to one perspective that you don't see any realities in the world, just a point of view with blinders on. (Sorry about the word MadridMan. There just isn't a replacement for it in our vocabulary.)

Now you go ahead and rave against everything as much as you want. I no longer care. Maybe a trip to a Chinese Communist "re-education center" would do you a world of good. You might not think the US is the great satan after they get through with you. But then again... you might just like it. After all, they approach reality the same way as you do. With blinders on.

Wolf

I have said it other times, but I don`t mind to repeat it:
I am not any nihilist. I like, let`s say, Switzerland. I like Canada and Costa Rica. I think the system works in those countries.
I don`t believe in wars, that is all. I don`t think threre is any lesson to learn from Vietnam, Lebanon, Yugoslavia or any other war, except that it was stupid to start the whole thing.
I see you get aroused, Wolf, when confronted with certain facts. So bad for you, of course that is your problem, not mine. If you don`t want to "discuss", as you call it, it is ok for me. So long, then

Gazpach: What Cristobo is calling the Law Chamber is the House of Reprsenatives. I have read his post where he has refered to the Law Chamber and the Senate at the same time and that has to be what he is talking about. One of those terms that gets moved around after being interpreted back and forth three or four times.

Critobo: I like Costa Rica myself. Canada has outrageously high taxes, and as you can imagine from someone that lives in the desert of Arizona I don't like cold weather.

Lonoma:

I have to agree with you, since you didn't say "most spanish", and many is an indeterminate number that could be 100, 1.000, 10.000, ..., depending on the opinion of that who is writing.

But that Bush is hated by at least 80% of the country is what surveys declare. Just as in most countries of the UE and in many ther countries in the world.

Cristobo,

"Law Chamber" must be referring to Congress or our Legislature. Well, I don't like war either but I don't like turning my back on an ally, or even a potential ally. For me, when one person on this earth lives in slavery, we all do.

Ignacio,

It sure doesn't surprise me that that many people in Europe hate Bush. After all, they hate what America stands for (INDEPENDENCE). So, as so many times has been stated on this board, please cast your lot with France and Germany and this will be more than fine with me. Sorry to lose you as an ally against tyrants, but go in peace.

Ignacio: I would say that 80% would be a very high estimate of the people in Spain that hate Jr. But the fact that "The Three Stooges" of Europe (Zapaptero, Chirac, Shroder)hate him is one of the reasons that he was reelected, by us stupid ignorant unsophisticated people that live in the interior of America. If you notice one of the first things that he mentioned in his first press conference Thursday, was a trip to Europe to try and improve relations. None of the Three Stooges have mentioned comeing to the US to try and improve relations. Your El Pais paper showed a photo of Zapatero saying he was going to have to change his approach to US Spanish relations.

We in America are offering our hand in friendship. I myself offered my hand in friendship to you, but you pushed my hand away. We as Americans wish you all the best.

Sorry Desert Dweller but is really offensive. You become outraged when anyone - in particular non-US citizens refer to US politicans in such terms -

Please try to give the same respect to others that you feel you deserve.

Again - I'm all for free speech and freedom of opinion - I'm merely suggesting that down right antagonism is uncalled for.

I think Three Stooges fits the bill. Let's stop worrying about offending someone after having to listen to so many people insult our president, and ridicule the majority of our country. Why should I care that Ignacio says 80% of Spaniards hate Bush ? They probably get their info from El Pais and therefore their hatred is based on false information from that paper. I'm very happy/relieved that Bush won, and I don't care what a bunch of anti-American Spaniards think. I do think it's funny/fitting that so many anti-American Europeans are so caught up in our elections, that's great. And we voted for who WE wanted in office, not who YOU wanted, and you're angry about that for some reason.

Colin,

Puna's request isn't that we shouldn't voice differences, but that we do it in a civilized manner. We all go off half-cocked at times and throw out insulting terms referring to leaders from Europe, or the US. Therein lies the problem. If we quit doing this (I'm as guilty as anyone else), the discourse will be more pallatable to everyone, and nobody is being insulted.

I think everyone would agree on this issue, because the insulting names only further the division, and close people's minds further. Our objective is to learn more about each other and our societies, not create a chasm that can't be broached.

Wolf

Ditto ColinK,

Keep on the antagonizing Desert Dweller. I've heard enough about how stupid we are. :p

ColinK, I think you'd have to agree that the US elections have far-reaching consequences - well beyond the borders of the US. To suggest with some smug satisfcation that it amuses you that other people pay attention is somewhat insulting. In the end the election doesn't just affect Americans.

I don't think anyone in Europe really thinks the majority of Americans are "stupid and unsophisticated". Basically this week has been a huge letdown and the next few weeks or so are going to be an anti-climax.

Hopefully some kind of harmony between European gorvernments and the Bush administration will happen sooner rather than later otherwise we're all in trouble. I don't mean the sort of harmony created by my own glorious leader though. We will have our chance to kick him out in spring!

Whilst your election may have been one of the most divisive in history at least we can celebrate that it brought a record turnout which can only be a good thing.

First of all I want to say thank you to Puna for her input, I thought that I would never get her to talk to me. It is good to know that you do read my posts past the words Desert Dweller.

Second if anyone should feel insulted it is the family, friends and fans of three of America's great philosophers, as well as being great memebers of the performing arts. After all to have compared three great Americans to the geopolitical second string is totally unacceptable. I here by appologize to the family, friends and fans of the late Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curley Howard. I can assure you all that I will not desicrate the memory of those fine gentlemen again.

I want to thank you Puna for having pointed out the error of my ways, and I can assure you one and all that I will not allow my manners to slip like that again.

I give up! :p

Dommo, you are correct since time immemorial there has always been a dominant nation. If you look through the annals of history, many of the European nations had a dominance hierarchy, and those of us in the Americas had to look up to Whitehall, Madrid, Paris,etc., at one time or another for international leadership.

There's an interesting Americanism: What comes around goes around. And that may be at the root of the antagonism against the U.S., that by world standards we are a relatively young nation. They question our readiness to be the dominant nation. Yet, we have the longest, or one of the longest running representative democracies in the world. We are a nation of many diverse peoples from all over the world, representing many languages and cultures. In many ways we are at the forefront of what is now occurring in Europe with the population shifts that are nascent in many countries like Spain, for example.

I am not so sure if I would agree with your statement about this being the most divisive election in history of this country. Looking back at the Civil War era, I would say that that was a more divisive era.

I would say that there certainly is a divisiness and it is within the Democratic party. For example, this election is fascinating because the moderates by far voted with the Republican party. This is borne out by the changes in the voting districts from the 2000 election to the 2004 election, see my link above to the voting district map.

I live in the South and in my county all the local politicians are Democrats, if you are not a Democrat you don't vote in local elections. Yet these very same people crossed party lines and voted for the Republicans.

???

Booklady, I said "one of the most" not "the most" but to be honest I was really thinking of the modern era!

In the end I was just trying to come from a moderate point of view in terms of people insulting each other's beliefs. I don't really want to end up in a full-on discussion about US / European foreign policy etc. It is Guy Fawkes Night after all! I'm off to enjoy the family event of burning human effigies

Dommo,

Just out of curiosity, if indeed Tony Blair is voted out of office this spring, who do you think will take his place? The Tories or someone to the far left of Neil Kinnock? And do you think he/she will side with Bush or against him?
BTW how was Guy Fawkes night?

Cogito cogito ergo sum cogito

Dommo: You are right to get frusterated with us Americans over some of the remarks that are made on this and other web cites around. Over all we Americans are peace loveing and rather easy to get along with crowd of people. When a crisis strikes any where in the world you can rest assured that one of the first to offer help will be the US. A couple of years after the Iranians captured our Embassy there was a disasterous earthquake in Northern Iran. You guessed it none other than Ronald W. Regan himself orderd tons of food and medical supplies to be delivered. When your own Falkland Islands were attacked in the early 1980s, you saw who Margeret Thatcher turned to. When the Island of Grenada was attacked by Cuba in 1983, their leader who did not even own a pair of shoes, she went to Washington to talk to Regan himself. I might add that Spain had just joined NATO when the Falklands incident occured and refused to help, saying that they had a common language with Argentina and did not want to get involved. Thus shirking their NATO commtiment.

We take the insults and try to hurl them back in good humor and try whenever possible to offer our hand in friendship. On my part they are always meant to be in humor, although they do not always convey that way in the written word.

If we come across as surley and nasty it, most of the time, is not meant that way. Our own leader, Jr. said on Thursday in his first post election press conf. that he is planning a trip to Europe to try and rebuild the EuroAmerican relationship. He knows most of Europe does not like him, and that he has made many people mad. The important thing is he wants to try and get along. Both him and his constituants are willing to make the first move toward improving that relationship. You don't see Chirac offering to coming here.

These are some of the reasons that web cites like this are such a great thing. It allows for a free exchange of ideas for the average citizens of both countries back and forth at such a small expence. If some words are exchanged that seem offensive they can be erased. They are not bullets or bombs.

Good luck God Bless. Looking forward to more exchanges with you.

PS. My guess is most Spaniards do not know who Moe Howard, Larry Fine, and Curly Howard were.

Desert Dweller,

Certainly you're not suggesting that there might be people on this earth who are so uncultured as not to know who the Three Stooges are? No wonder we're misunderstood.

Gazpacho:

No, we LOVE it. That's why we want it, FROM the USA.

Maybe. Well, "hate" is a strong word. many hate him, how many I couldn't tell. I do.

But no doubt a high percentage, close to 80% hate or condemn what he has done in Irak, that I am positive, and several days ago I supplied data of a survey on this matter and others alike.

Concretely, the question:

"Which is your opinion on George Bush", the percentages were:

Very good 1.4%
Rather good 11,3%
Rather bad 30%
Very bad 46.8%

No answer/Don't know 10.6%

Which sums 76.8% out of a 89.4% of total answered, which means over an 80% out of 100%.

"War in Irak was justified?"

Yes 13%
No 79.5%
No answer/Don't know 7.5%

Again, 79,5%/92,5% (total of answers) is very much over 80%.
ABout 85% or more.

Even PP voters consider the war unjustified (56.5% of 89,1% total answers) majoritarily, and dislike or condemn Junior (56,1% out of a total of 85,2% of answers).

Desert Dweller:

Zapatero tried to congratulate Junior out of pure courtesy, and he did't answer the phone. Logical, after all, but before blaming others, why don't you look first at your own behaviour?

I myself offered my hand in friendship to you, but you pushed my hand away

I would hate you to feel offended. Believe me I wish you no bad. But I have had very hot debates where progressively people was escalating with sarcasm, ending in insults. But you didn't need to escalate, you promptly begun to scorn at me, so I don't think we'd be comfortable with each other.

Errrrr... Cuba invaded WHAT? Can't believe it. All the world was crazy about a gratuite USA invasion of one of the countries of his "backyard", just because they didn't like their government or something.

AND, the Falklands were invaded April 2nd 1982. Spain joined the NATO ( politically, militarly was due to be years later) Oct 29th 1981.

That it was for a common language that we didn't help is only your guess, and it's wrong. We weren't implied:

First because the parliament, or in this case, the people through direct votation (referendum) had to pass the law too, and there was no referendum by then because the answer would had been a huge NO, as any inform on our history will tell you.

Secondly becasuse, because of this, they arranged a parliament procedure to avoid popular vote, and pass the law, but this happened in 1985.

That's why we didn't take part. We weren't fully members until that agreement had been passed by legislative.

besides of the practical reasons like we weren't integrated in the NATO hierarchy yet, and couldn't work coordinately because we lacked practice in multilateral combined fleets, and so on, but this is "peccata minutta" compared to the two previous reasons.
In fact, the argentinians were claiming we should attack Gibraltar, another leftover of Brtish colonialism, and divide the NATO effort, and some people in here was for it, but fortunately we didn, because that piece of sh*t of rock isn't worth a singel life.

By the way, the USA respected their NATO alliance, and dishonoured their south american alliance with Argentina. How about that? Shouldn't you have been neutral?

Gazapacho: I would be surprised if Ignacio did in fact know who the great philosophical trio of Mr. Howard, Mr.Fine and Mr. Howard were. I think they would have fallen prey to the censorship the late Generalisimo. Ignacio's latest post is he wants Spain to be independant from the US. We have only one military base left in Spain. Very little trade relations, Zapatero has turned a cold ear to diplomatic relations. The only thing left would be for Ignacion not participate on this board. That does not seem likley,as he enjoys telling us all how unsophisticated we are because we used the voting booth to rain on Europe.

Ignacio: where did you read that about Jr. not answering the phone El Pais? Certainly a reliable source. As far as the Falklands are concerned it was made clear at the time that your leader did not want to be invloved because of the common lanuage with Argentina. As far a Grenada is concerned I am not surprised that you have never heard of it, the whole operation only took about three days and the US was the only one involved.

Ignacion: Last spring right after Zapatero recalled all the Spanish troops from Iraq, were you aware that he requested NATO send the AWACS planes to provide airborne warning and control for the Royal Wedding? This was in fact provided. Do you know the name that was painted on the front of both sides of the fuselage of those aircraft? Let me help you out on that one Ignacio
US AIR FORCE. Not NATO not Espana. You dont want our help, fine with us. You dont want our friendship, fine with us. You dont want our military help, fine with us. I am still trying to figure out what it is that you think we are doing that makes Spain not free from the US. Maybe you can help me out on that one.

I do have one real good question for you Ignacio. You have made it clear that you hate President Bush, you have made it clear that you hate the US, you have made it clear that you consider us to be a bunch of unsophisticated fools, why do you participate on this board? It seem to me that you are getting high blood pressure from conversing with us unsophisticated fools.

I'll say it with more simple words:

Spain-no-in-OTAN-till-1985-fully.
I-Know-about-Granada-but-no-cubans-there-just-usa-invasion-sovereign-small-indefense-country.

Diario de León, another newspaper. Zapatero phoned and was told that he will be "attended soon".

Conservative rightest PP wing ABC newspaper.

There are more.

No, I don't think that all americans are unsophisticated brutes. But I believe there are too many of those. And besides, even people who have brains, don't have both sides' info on any political, economical, social matter, and they think they have it, which makes them as easily manipulable as those brutes. Kind of a whole life's brainwashing that few (mostly those who can travel and are open to debate) can dis-program.

Yes, the NATO uses mainly OTAN AWACS, and it's a great help, but I believe it was only a comlementary measure just in case, because, you know, we have our own radars in our country. Of course we don't need mobile radars because we're not going to invade anybody. But (I am not certain, but I believe) those AWACS have a compensaion for their services to the NATO, that is, they are not free.

BTW, there has been a recent declaration of our highest rank militar (besides of the King), general Félix Sanz (Jefe de Estado Mayor de la Defensa) that the USA contributes to Spain, through the NATO much less tahn what Spain gives, and that the relationship had to be balanced.

A vry good example is that one: radars. Recently Spain wanted to change the old radars for new ones, INdra (spanish tech firm) developed them and Spain paid for them. We asked Nato for financial help, to cover for the installing (minor) expenses, and (not the NATO but the USA unilaterally) said NO, because they now have AWACS (that the USA can give or not) and don't want to help anymore, as other countries had previously had been helped by the same alliance they contribute with funds. That would let our preventive systems totally in the hand of the UsA, if they didn't want to send AWACS we would be blind!

Spain blocked then several financial projects for american interests that NATO would pay, like a leisure center for american pilots in Aviano, but this one was later unblocked as a good will proof, but the USA kept on vetoeing all spanish projects.

First, I participate in this board, but I don't do it because I want specifically to discuss USA politics, much less discuss them with american citizens. This is an international board, and politics is just a marginal part of it, although becse it's a hot debate, it gets much more attention and participation.

Second: I hate USA foreign policy, and your ultracapitalist social scheme, and the nationalism that makes you not permeable to info, just your "commander in chief" words no matter that more and more proofs appear of it's falsehood.

But I don't hate americans, although Bush voters are not pleasant for me (because they justify USA state terrorism in Irak), and I don't hate the idea of the america that should be (according to your own fathers of the nation), what I hate is what it has become, which is too different.

Ignacio, I have news, Cuba did invade Grenada...
You can read more about it in Wikipedia the online encyclopedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

Cuba was in eternal debt to the Soviet Union. The Soviets totally subsidized the cost of running the island to the tune of millions, which in poetic justice helped in bankrupting the Soviets. :p Anyway, Fidel paid his debt by sending Cubans to fight all over the world, places like Angola, and other lesser known places.

Ignacio,

Where do you come up with this garbage? Don't you have history books that deal with facts, and sources that don't paint pictures without leaving out the truth? This is really getting old!

One more time into the breach!

The US became involved with the issue of Grenada in response to an appeal from the Governor General(under house arrest by the Communists) and to a request for assistance from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The mission was to oust the People's Revolutionary Government, to protect U.S. citizens and restore the lawful government.

The neighbors feared what lay ahead, as the Soviets and Cubans who planned destabilization of their governments and an overthrow of same just like the Cubans and Soviets fostered in Grenada itself.

The opposition, all part of a package put together by Castro and the Soviet Union: 1,200 Grenadians (People's revolutionaries), 780 Cubans, 49 Soviets, 24 North Koreans, 16 East Germans, 14 Bulgarians, and 3 or 4 Libyans. All were soldiers, some were military engineering. The Libyans were the only ones who weren't military personnel.

The "invading force" was predominantly Americans, but OAS states sent troops as well. It was never about the US.

The existing government at the time of the invasion was Communist revolutionary. It first came into power when it overthrew (was not elected) the duly elected government of the country in 1979. At that time, according to reports, the bulk of the rebel forces involved in the overthrow were actually Cuban, not Grenadan as some people would like to believe. They were behind the entire operation, supported it, and armed the rebels.

The Communist leader who took control was the PRG leader Maurice Bishop. By 1983 the Soviets and Cubans realized that Bishop's plans did not include invading his neighbors with Cuban and other foreign troops as they wanted, so he was asassinated, and the stronger communists who were willing to abide by the Cuban/Soviet plan of destabilizing area governments took control.

I'm afraid this is one more feeble attempt at trying to make the US look like a monster by totally avoiding facts, and paying homage to communist propaganda that is so far from the truth that anyone who has half a mind, would know it's not true.

But, like all the arguments we are forced to field from you and Cristobo, none of the hold water, none of them are true, and none of them deal with reality. The two of you live in a fairy tale world where the evil empire is the US, and the only thing you can do is attack... attack... attack... and you don't have to do it armed with truth, you can do it with inuendo, and lies.

I suggest the two of you take a cold hard look at what you represent, and why your causes are considered so far out in left field. You have serious problems accepting anything that isn't channeled directly into the scope of what you want to hear.

As I said, this is getting old. You really have problems.

Wolf

Ignacio: The reason the US deployed troops to the Falkland to assist the British is because we joined NATO in 1948 and the SATO in the late 1950s. Our policy has always been and always will be to assist the "attacked" in this case the British via the Falkland. Also the first treaty took presadent over the second. Therfore the British were assisted.

As far as Jr. not taking Zapatero's phone call, I think Jr. probably still felt upset over the blatant slap in the face that Zapatero had given the US in the spring. I don't think I would have taken his call either. Spain flat walked out on a commitment in response to an act of terrorism, thus caving into the terrorist. Now Jr. as well as the majority of America does not feel like we could depend on Spain in a crisis mode. As you have pointed out before we turned out in record numbers for the election this week. We stood up to the terrorist, your people gave them what they wanted.

I have to tell you Ignacio, your not a stupid person. You are dealing with mostly Americans on this board and as you said it is an international board. But you should start to think about the purely hateful things that you say. Many of which are truly unfounded.

As far as your comment about Gibralter is concerned, again history will record to you that neither Hitler or Franco would agree with your assesment as not worth fighting for. Hitler wanted to invade Franco would not allow it.I have to also point out to you that neither would Generals Patton, Eisenhower, Feild Marshall Montgomery would agree with you. Gibralter is a "very" strategic location. Obviously both Hitler and Franco thought it had value.

I wish you well.

During WWII, there was no safe passage possible for ships through the Straits of Gibraltar without control of Gibraltar itself. The passage is too narrow, and guns from the British fortifications could control everything that passed.

Hitler did want the Straits, and did ask Franco to attack the British. He even offered air help, ground forces, and naval assault forces to assist.

Franco turned him down, indicating that any foreign soldiers, including the Germans, on Spanish soil, would be considered invaders. In turn, to keep from making it look like he'd turned on Hitler, Franco increased production of materials that the Nazis needed for their war machine, and thereby kept the Nazis happy, although they still wanted Gibraltar.

Even today, the strategic significance of Gibraltar is unparallelled. Absolutely nothing can move through without being detected.

When you consider the change in government that Spain has had, it becomes a lot easier to understand why the British have no intention of ever giving Gibraltar back to Spain. They may suggest referendums in Gibraltar, but they know full well that they people will jettison the idea as quick as it's put on the docket.

Britain would never turn control of something that strategic over to a country that can't be trusted to remain a vigilant ally to them when the chips are down.

Wolf

Ignacio,

I think there's a problem in this reasoning. I don't quite understand why the US is supposed to "match the funds" that Spain gives to NATO in funds given to Spain. We put equipment, money, and men into NATO in a much larger quantity than Spain ever will, and since Spain can "go it alone," as Zapatero has indicated, why in the world would you ever think we "owe" Spain payment for their rightful investment into NATO itself? That doesn't make sense.

Obviously, with the comments Zapatero has made about Bush and our government, I wouldn't give him one dollar in support. He should get his support from his friends in France and Germany, who aren't quite as "outspoken" against us as your President is. To me, giving Spain funds would be like handing it to someone who repeatedly punches you in the face, hoping that he's going to turn into a nice guy and doesn't.

On the phone call from Zapatero to Bush. I thought it was a polite response from the President's people in DC. They indicated that Bush would "get back to him" when he had time, to thank him for calling. If that made Zapatero feel "slighted," he might think about the statements he made in regards to Bush, and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq before he feels he was abused. You might say, he asked for it. Strangely enough, both Schroeder and Chirac were able to get through to Bush and offer their personal congratulations. It kind of tells me that even though they were opposed to our actions, they didn't burn their bridges like Zapatero did with the US.

Now, like it or not, Spain and the US are going to have to live with the ramification of those actions.

Wolf

I think we should give it up guys.

Next thing Ignacio, Cristobo, or Martin will be telling us is that the U.S. backed Castro in his attack of Granada. I don't know how they do it, couldn't be with straight faces, but you have to admit, they spin their webs of lies, half-truths, innuendo, and conspiracy theories almost as well as the U.S. media. Hmmmmm. Well, not quite that well. Really, they are quite amatuerish compared to Dan Rather. But they deserve an 'A' for effort.

I have to agree with Gazpacho, especialy Ignacio gets overly blown with his hate for America. He refered to those that voted Bush as unsophiticated brutes. There must have been some tramatic event in his life for him to feel the US is the cause of all the world's problems. Out of one side of his face he says that Spain does not need the US, then blames the US for not buying a new radar system for Spain. One could go on and on about his outright lies and half truths, but I think the best thing is to ignor his posts and eventually he will get the message and go on down the road. There is another cite he could log onto with his Hate America rhetoric and they would welcome him with open arms.

Seems that things are beginning to get out of hand here and maybe it's time to close this thread before they do.

Criticism does not equal Hate but the level of name-calling in this thread has reached an uncomfortable point for me. I've made it a kind of rule to let this "Non-Spain Discussion" forum be more open-ended than the others, allowing more views for and against, more tangents, more expression.

The election is over. Now we ALL have to live with the results. US politics is not popular is much of the rest of the world and we (the USA) have a lot of work to do to improve - and hopefully we will. Clearly, the USA is a major interventionist in the matters of other countries. Anyone in the USA or abroad who doesn't see this isn't seeing reality.

Nationalism is not usually a good thing no matter how it's presented to the citizens and flag-waving doesn't usually make many friends (i.e. allies) in the world unless you're of a like-mind. I'd like to see the USA become more of a Big Brother than a Father in the world.

Anyone know the saying, "Do as I say and not do as I do"? Is that fair? Have you ever told an older sibling, "You're not the boss of me!"? No one likes being told what to do or forced to do something that goes against your beliefs or have the beliefs of others LEGISLATED upon us. Then you can imagine how many other countries in the world feel when stronger, more powerful and influential entitities are attempting to manage every move of a smaller, weaker, less-influential nation on the word stage.

We all share this world. We (the USA) don't own it.

So that's it! You've been a wonderful audience. Goodnight! (topic closed - don't you just hate it when I get the last word and then close the topic?)

Saludos, MadridMan