I just heard that Spain is now supporting the US against Iraq. Has anybody heard about this?

You may find it in every spanish newspaper:

(El Mundo) MADRID.- El presidente del Gobierno, José María Aznar, anunció en el Congreso que España apoyará a EEUU si decide atacar Irak para evitar otro 11 de septiembre. Zapatero respondió que no respaldará una acción que no cuente con el beneplácito de la ONU y pidió al Gobierno que consulte 'cada paso' a la Cámara.

(El Mundo) MADRID.- The president, José María Aznar anounced in the Congress that Spain will support USA if this country decides to attach Iraq, in order to avoid another 11th of September. Zapatero (head of the main oposition party, PSOE) answered that he will not support any action that doesn't count with the beneplacit of the UN, and asked the Government to consult 'every step' with the Congress.

How was my translation?

The link: El Mundo\'s article

The situation is that Aznar has said that he will support a US attack to Iraq even if the UN doesn't give permission. Thus, Spain is the second country to do so after UK.
The oposition (not only PSOE, but I think every other party than PP) believes that Spain should support an attack only if it is ordered by UN.

I have had a discussion today with my friends (today is the birthday of one of those friends...) regarding this issue. It is a controversial one indeed. Some polls said that 52% of spaniards is against such attack, while 32% is for.

I don't really have a clear opinion on this...

Fernando

Once again I think Aznar has made a very wise choice. We must ALL work together to stamp out fires BEFORE they become wildfires. Whether it's ETA, or Hamas, or Al-Quida,or Iraq, sooner is FAR better than later.
viva Great Britain, Spain, and America!

And Vermont! Those commie bastards! Nuke 'em I say!

My point: Avoid more wars. We clearly can assume that the Al-Qaida group are terrorists, even though the perpetrators of the 11-S attack are all dead. In fact, the majority of them apparently knew nothing of the plans until they were on the airplanes. Therefore the remaining members of the group are conspirators and should be arrested and charged in court as such. Conspirators in crimes against humanity.

No more bombings please. Michigan was not bombed flat looking for Timothy McVeigh's accomplices. Pakistan was not bombed because it developed a nuclear bomb, nor was Israel. The US should be putting it's money into schools and hospitals, not aircraft carriers.

Asterault,

Although I agree with your statement for the most part, there's a big difference between Michigan & Iraq. Michigan wasn't protecting McVeigh, whereas Iraq is protecting and aiding al-Qaeda.

Regardless of how much money the US put into education, and humanitarian efforts, al-Qaeda would still exist, and be an active force, if they aren't dealt with. Since Iraq, and a few other nations don't recognize the need to turn these people over for justice, and continue to support their effort, we really have no alternative but go after them. I'm quite certain that diplomatic routes would be laughed at, and Americans would continue to die in the future, because we did nothing.

Although I don't support war, I realize that the only thing that will bring al-Qaeda to its knees is the fact that there won't be safe havens for them to hide, and plot their next act against helpless civilians.

As for putting money into nations for economic growth, and education, I'm reminded that it doesn't make sense to hand money to a nation that postures against the US, and would use all or part of the money we gave them to support activities directed against Americans - especially if they include terrorism.

No. It's time to send a message to nations that would support and harbor terrorists that there are nations on this earth who will do whatever is necessary to end their involvement. If that means taking out Saddam Insane by attacking Iraq, I'm not going to cry for him, but I'd gladly be there for the people of Iraq, under a fair and impartial government, in helping them rebuild their nation in a democratic format.

If we do nothing, terrorist acts will grow to devastating levels. It will lead to full scale war, which nobody on earth wants. It's better to end it all now, instead of turning it into another world war.

Wolf (Not pleased by whichever option we have. )

Another hot debate, I see. Let's just try to keep it relative to Spain as toddy would like it that way. Thanks.

Sorry. I'll stop posting about it, it's got nothing to do with this board.

Uhhh... to get back on topic, uhhh, well... Spain starts with an "S"!

I wonder if any spanish nationals lost their lives in 9/11 attack, and if so, then it seems to me that al-Qaeda and spain belong to same topic , same page, same thread, same discussion??

Al-Qaeda and what it represents is a threat to every democratic nation and institution in the world, and spain may have a very important role in this fight due to it's geographical location , whether it wants it or not.

I don't know anything about troubles brewing in Michigan, just in case I always take a long detour around Ann Arbour.

As a cycling fan I wanted to point out that there is a full co-operation in many areas between US and Spain.

For example today in 6. stage of Vuelta , Granada- La Panderas ( Jaen), spanish rider Heras, riding for US team USPS, also known as Lance's team, had his first stage win riding in Vuelta a Espana.

Seemless international co-operation with excellent results, why, maybe next year Bush and Aznar could ride for ONCE or USPS as domestiques.

Hi Zzeus, to answer your question:

2-3 spaniards lost their lives on 9/11
28 Al Qaeda members have been imprisoned in Spain so far
1090 spanish soldiers are detached in Afghanistan

USA is also using its bases in Spain by now. Yesterday three ships departed from the Rota sea-port (US carrier Nassau and its escort) to a destination in the Indic Ocean.

I think this topic has something to do with Spain...

Fernando

It's all a plot by Aznar to build US support for outlawing Batasuna and destroying ETA. Although he is a sly fox, he's not fooling me.

Cali - once again - well said!

Am going to surmise that many of you heard Bush's speech at the UN today - and, like him or not / agree with him or not - the speech was excellent. All the commentaries that I've heard certainly feel that between remarks made by Kofi Annan and Bush about Iraq that there is far more consensus now than a week ago. I, for one, am firmly of the belief that ANY military action, by any country, requires the blessing of the UN and the internal political mechanisms of that country - for the US that means congressional approval.

Spain, France, & Italy have all come out with the statement that they will support steps against Iraq; based on comments by Annan and Bush today - this will, in all likelyhood, be under UN auspices.

The gist of the comments before the UN boiled down to the Security Council had enacted restrictions and requirements on Iraq that - 10 years later - have still not been met. That were, in fact, been totally disregarded by the current regime. In other words - as Annan said - the UN brought the sanctions into effect - now the UN needed to enforce them.

Please note - terrorism was not addressed as 'Bin Laden, El Quida, ETA, November 17th, IRA' or any other group/person - but was primarily dealt with as an outgrowth of the Iraqi regime. Any thoughts on that one?

Puna,

I agree with your statement about the UN. It has to become involved. Last week Hussein announced they were close to having the capability of delivering a nuclear bomb, and in the final stages of developing one. Talk about thumbing his nose at the UN. It couldn't have been a clearer statement of his position, and his intent, in total disregard to the sanctions from ten years ago.

Spain is directly involved in this position, politically, and geographically. The threat isn't against the US alone, it's against the whole of what is loosely known as "The West," as well as some of his neighbors in his own back yard.

There's little doubt that Iraq did, and continues to support terrorism throughout the world, and according to information that surfaced IN SPAIN , they too were already on the verge of becoming a target even before 9/11. As for the names of the groups, they are too numerous to mention. They develop as splinter groups from Islamic extremism, and flourish under governments like Iraq's.

I believe Bush eliminated using bin Laden's name, as well as al-Qaeda, intentionally. He intended to make his statement on a broad base, which would include terrorism under any name, no matter where it is. That would include Malaysia, Chechnya, and the Phillipines, as well as Balkan nations, and yes, Spain.

Wolf

Wolf, I would not say "have to" seek UN approval. Remember, the UN is still in the "dream stages" of a perfect world. I think they should be consulted and asked to support and or participate in an attack. However, their approval or non should have no influence on our decision to attack.

Once again, I thank Spain for their support in the difficult fight against terrorism. They have known and suffered terrorism for many years and it is OVERTIME that the world visa vi the UN or any other organiztion to take back civilization as we democraticaly know it.

"There is a time for peace, there is a time for war."

Thank you PP and to a man who knows when it's time to take a stand, Señor Aznar.SALUDOS
United We Stand!

Toddy,

I think the UN has to become involved. If they don't, they're failing to support their own resolution, which prohibits Iraq from chemical and nuclear proliferation. It's their people that can't get in for inspection.

If the UN fails to recognize its obligation in this matter, and the US and several allies go into Iraq on their own, it's up to Annan and the members who silently support our position in the UN to step forward and tell those who voted against involvement that they were wrong, and the method of determining action must be changed.

The very thought that one nation, like the US or Russia could veto something that's mandated by everyone else in the Security Council is insane. It's been nothing more than a political arena where ideologies instead of realities has been in play. It's time for that to change. Aznar and Blair have alluded to that in speeches over the last two months, as well as Bush.

Had it not been for the Moorish invasion of Parsley Island, there's an outside chance Spain wouldn't have supported us on the issue of Iraq. But, based on the fact that all Muslim nations lined up in support of Morocco, without hesitation, simply because they were Islamic, sent a chilling message to Spain, and other countries as to where they stand when it comes to diplomacy. No matter how strong we think our ties are to a Muslim state, one renegade state can offer controntation, and what we thought were friends, suddenly line up against us. Spain saw that even with Khadafi, and Libya. It's little wonder the Western powers are aligning the same way.

Of course, no matter what, the Russians will be opposed to almost anything we do - hoping to sell more fighter planes to Iraq, and get paid in gold and oil. To think they show interest in joining NATO, or being part of EU, is absurd.

Wolf

"Visa vi"...is that a new credit card offered by Banesto or did you mean "vis-a-vis"? :p

As much as I want us to go in and kick SoDamn Insane's arse, I do think it wise to do it under the auspices of a UN action, not a US-only action...not that we can't handle it ourselves...but that it is wisdom to have a variety of backers in case things turn a little sour.

Wolf & all;

Don't worry about the Russians. they're posturing for a couple of reasons: 1st, to wring additional consessions from Washington on Chechnya, Georgia, IMF, NATO expansion and economic aid (among others) and 2nd to show to the Russian people taht Moscow is still a "Player" on the world stage at the same level as the US. They'll support action vs. Iraq.

Now, about the UN. the UN is not going to protect this country against the Enemy camp that includes (not limited to) Iraq and al Queda. Only the threat of American might will do so. The elimination of Saddam Hussien will solve alot more problems than it creates. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict will be OVER within two years of Hussein's ouster. Mark my words.

And MUCHAS GRACIAS to Spain and Aznar for supporting this nation at a critical time in this crisis. It will not be forgotten.

If you ask me: I wish Spain keeps far from this as possible...but if there on our side ..I'm grateful.
Viva Espana!!!

Go NYPD

PS: Kurt if we remove the nuclear threat (aka Saddam) we will create a whole diffrent problem

but I guess we're dammed either way????

Wolf,
I completely agree with your comments about the total insanity of one nation having the right to veto what has already been implemented in the Security Council! I think we all understand the whys and wherefores of Russia's postulating - especially when in one breathe they liken the situation to what is going on with Chechinya and are asking for UN support in that issue - and in that same breathe can possibly veto the UN sanctions of Saddam.

A bit off the subject but a couple of books by Claire Sterling - The Terrorist Network (1981) and Thieves World (1994) give a vastly informative and still current understanding of some of the funding behind terrorism.

And now - back to Spain .....

Wolf,
please address the fantasy world intellectual aspect of the UN as opposed to the modern world reality.

We, the US, should vocalize the fantasy but not act on it. We still live in the reality and real fundamental Darwanism which still dictates the world's reality. I think the world, thus, deserves the fight at any cost to assist the survival of the democratic societies of the world.