It looks like another calm, intelligent, on-topic debate has started up!

Kurt pointed to something early on, that people should think about. In the U.S., we are a "consumer culture." We buy things because we have money.

To a lot of the world, this makes us despots. But step back for a moment and take a look at how rediculous that statement is.

Americans buy things. That means we have good incomes. When we buy things, companies manufacture them. That means that people are hired to make these products. If Americans quit spending, companies would lay people off, and wages would go down. If both these things happen, the amount of taxes collected goes down even more.

In other words, when you ask us to "share the wealth," where do you think this "wealth" comes from? It comes from the free enterprise and spending we do, not from some magical tree that blooms only in the U.S. If we don't have money to support foreign aid (and it comes from taxes), do you think that our government would cut assistance to our own people before they did for other nations? They wouldn't, because no other country in the world does, so why should we.

So, the next time you look at us as "decadent Americans," who spend too much, remember, it's our buying power that fuels the system, that fuels the taxes, that makes handouts to other nations possible. It's not a magical machine or tree, that produces things. It's Americans. We're paying the bill for those international ATM cards that so many nations love to use, then call us decadent. Talk about having ones views skewed... this takes the cake.

Wolf

As usual, I'm staying out of it. Not my cup of tea, anyway.

I just ask that everyone be respectful of others opinions and ideas. We're not going to change anyone's minds here. Enjoy the discussion but let's not allow it to get out of hand, start name-calling, etcetera. We're all adults here (I think).

Saludos, MadridMan

Roe, MM
I think the debate has become quite "cool" in the late posts. As you say, we are adults, here.
When I was a teen, in the 80s, I used to read "Reader`s digest". And I am glad I did so; it helped me to understand the way communism opressed people, in Eastern Europe and other places. You could not read that sort of things in Spanish papers, in those days; communism was "cool", then. Now things have turned upside down, and you must look for information anywhere you can, if you want to learn about the wrongs of the other side.
Wolf, you said in this same debate that we, Europeans, were some sort of fickle, distrustful people because we were not helping America in its war against "terror", while you delivered us from nazis and reds. That is unfair; this same week, a bunch of Al-Qaeda activists have been arrested in Spain, for example. Have you ever thought that perhaps we, Europeans, are providing you the help that you need? Have you stopped to think that the real menace for your welfare lies in those warlords that sit today in the Pentagon and the White house? We didn`t dislike Clinton, after all. Then why do we hate the current war hawks, Rumsfeld and the others? Maybe because they are eager to test their last-generation-nuclear toys in the imminent war? Because they have spent three years lying, concealing, and smashing human rights, especially as far as Arab minorities are concerned?
Don`t put the blame on us. It is not us who have increased your army budget, nor caused the outbreak of ENRON, WorldCOm, Arthur Andersen and the other scandals; it is not us who wrote the Patriotic act; and definitively, it is not us who started the current crisis.
The American revolution is one of the very few which, more or less, prevailed. If you want us to still believe that your country is the "country of liberty", dare to defy these new tyrants. Just by not supporting them electorally. Unfold a new party, or change the current ones. That`s all I say. And please, reduce your defense budget. Some 85%. OK?
Your statements were flattery, Wolf. Thanks!

Carmen,

If we knocked 85% off our defense budget, as you consider it, we'd see Kuwaitt as part of Iraq now. It's possible that Saudi Arabia would be under Iraqi control. South Korea's free government would be over-run by North Korea in a heart beat. Terrorism would set the order of business in the world, because too many people believe you can reason with a fanatic, when you can't. I'm not going to debate this issue, because the ramifications of the U.S. removing itself from the world arena as a military deterrent would be akin to letting the inmates take over the insane asylum. I'm not in favor of that either.

As for the people surrounding Bush, I'm afraid I can't see them as being as much of a threat to anyone as you paint the picture of them. The references you're making come from the same sources as the other statements. Sorry!

Wolf

I have just watch the State of Address and it was fairly interesting according to Bush and the majority of people Husein is an evil man. Well I must say I agree with him. Im not really inclined to say wether or not we sould attack Iraq but I bilieve it "might" have no real point to it. What we will probably be seeing very soon is an attack against Husein launching very soon.Suddams inferior army well stand no chance against the modern army of the US and we will see a defeat.BUT American blood might be spilled at the gates of Baghdad Suddams elite will be waiting and Iraqi regulars in an urban battle are more then a sufficient threat as well as iregulars (militia). Oh yeah Madridman is 16 considered an adult???Im also hearing some comparisons between the Spanish American War and the last Gulf War which of course are two totally diferent situations.In the Spanish American War Spain surrendered 200,000 troops that she had in Cuba while only about 1% of this army was used in any battle against the Americans the Spanish Army had superior weapons [yes they did :-)] [the same cannot be said about the navy :-(]as far as the army is concerned the Spanish infantry carried smoke less powder German Mausers which were far superior to any of the American infantry guns during the Battle of El Caney it took 16,000 Americans 10 hours or so to defeat the enemy of 500!!!Amagin if Spain had not of surrendered her 200,000 troops this could have been a Vietnam im not saying to any one on the message board but I have heard these two wars compared between the Gulf War and the Spanish American War whihch is of course an inaccurate comparison the only similarity is perhaps the goverments urgency to declare and using any excuse at their disposal. www.spanamwar.com very interesting none biased site. Oh yeah and Carmen you sound absolutely grazy im sorry but you are a little extreme.Even by my standards :-) I must admit I do respect America to some extent for example after I watched the movie Saving Private Ryan and I went to my warm comfortable bed nice room big TV I couldn't help but feel a little quilty.Or as if they fought and died so I could lay in bed with out having to worry about some Nazis killing me in my sleep.

Wolf,
Once again, you amaze me with your breadth of knowledge and your capacity to sift through the threads to get to the facts. This thread in particular has been filled with much misinformation, innuendo, and downright garbage.

I admire your patience in following your debate when others would have given up long ago. My hat is off to you! You are a better person than I
Bookie
-------

Quintos,

As I tell my son, who's 17, you are as old as you behave. If you behave in a mature manner you can be credible even if you are 13. But if you behave in an immature manner, you can be fifty and still be a child!

Thank you for sharing your site, if you are interested in another website that presents an unbiased presentation of the Spanish American War, you might want to take a look at the
Library of Congress : The world in 1898 This site has been developed by Historians and it includes documents from all countries involved.

You mentioned: I doubt it, and I will share my reasons for doubting your statement.

First , Spain was drained during the Napoleonic, and much later the Carlists wars. At about the same time as Spain was having trouble at home, Cuba and its mambises who from 1868 -1878 were fighting a guerrilla war with Spain. Spain and its officers were trained much the same way the British were trained during the American Revolutionary War, in the classic style of fighting. These troops were not the wily Spaniards of the 1800's Napoleonic War who gave France hell as guerrilla fighters, these officers were taught in military schools that taught battle order, useless in a guerrilla war, where the mambises wore no uniforms and it was hard to distinguish from the criollos. Also thanks to General Valeriano Weyler and his reconcentration policy even the Criollos were leery of lending aid to Spain.

Second, even though Spain had the largest army to cross the Atlantic, as you said over 200,000 soldiers, Cuba was far away from Spain, supplies and reinforcements were too far away. The Unites States Army was only a short 90 miles away, and as the Library of Congress Website cites:
the Spaniards would have been overwhelmed by local guerrillas who knew the environment and ready North American troops coming in from Key West. As an island, full of natural harbors, it would have been impossible for Spain to launch a viable blockade. It would have been a very short war, Cuba is a not that large. But what really tested Spain's determination was what happened at sea.

Third, The loss of the fleet led by Admiral Cervera was a blow to Spain.

Fourth, Then, too, Cuba was not the only front in which Spain was participating. They were also fighting in the Philippines and in Puerto Rico.
Last, but not least, Cuba was infested with malaria-driven mosquitos and other tropical diseases. Fighting in that environment was deadly. According to the Library of Congress site Anyway, as a Cuban-American, of Spanish ancestry, I am fascinated by this time period, and all that occurred. When I was in a café in Madrid in Dec 2001 I was speaking to a Spanish gentleman about Cuba, and he said to me: "Don't you wish that Spain had won the war?" I answered: "No, what I wish is that Fidel Castro's family would have stayed in El Ferrol and not immigrated to Cuba!"

Carmen, tranquila, I wasn't referring to you.

Perhaps MM is right...I won't make any more personal attacks off topic (or on topic for that matter). Being a teacher, spelling is just a personal peeve. Lo siento.

As for Spanish, I take the time to put in the accents, etc., so I just figure that those on this board that are at least native English speakers would pay attention to the little things. Alas, Utopia has yet again escaped my view.

It seems to me that hasty posts replete with errors are so because the poster has done so in anger or a heightened state of emotion. That may be a good indicator of whether something should've been posted or not. [He says as he holds out the olive branch]

As for the politics on the situation, there are two sides (or more, apparently) to each (hi)story. As has been noted, I doubt that I would change by reading what any of you have to say, nor would I expect you to change because of something I said (I can't even convince tenth-graders that completing homework assignments is important to their grade).

Sensible, fact-based dialogue, not inflammatory rants based entirely on emotion, is what informs and edifies. (That's why I don't post on ETA threads anymore... )

Carmen, are you saying that the term "Arab" refers to inhabitants of the Middle East who are Muslim and only after ca. 607 AD (EC)?

I may be incorrect (been known to happen once or twice), but does that mean that in order to be an Arab, you must be Muslim? Are Coptic Christians not Arabs if they live in Egypt? It seems to me from news sources and historical sources alike, that this is not so. Enlighten me...

Also,
[QUOTE] They have spent three years lying, concealing, and smashing human rights, especially as far as Arab minorities are concerned? [QUOTE]

Which Arabs have had their human rights violated? Those at Guantánamo Bay? Those Taliban in Afghanistan who defied the world mandate? (Only Pakistan the UAE recognized that government as legitimate at one point...and then they backed out.) Exactly what "smashing" is going on? Saddam "smashing" Kuwaitis and Kurds? Palestinians "smashing" their bodies all over the interiors of civilian-laden buses? Hamas agents "smashing" mortars at Israeli positions?

I'm always amazed that one side of an argument can be so easily forgotten when the other one seems to suit one's purposes so well.

Are both sides in each of the above-mentioned conflicts angels? Not necessarily. You really only need to boil it down to motivation.

Saddam's motivation? Apparently greed, power, paranoia and deception. Unless the stream of exiles from Iraq are a collective group of liars, and the photo evidence of what he did to his own people is an elaborate fabrication, this would seem to be fact.

Palestinian motivation? Hate, greed, and a desire to thumb their nose at the UN mandate. If you really research your history, in spite of the hatred that exists now, back in 1948, it wasn't like this. The other Arab nations were the ones who have incited the Palestinians, much like an expendable pawn in a game of ajedrez, to "rise up" against their "infidel" neighbor. It's just gone on so long now, that people accept it as if it's been the status quo for millenia.

People can hate and still coexist. Unfortunately we don't see much of that anymore in this world, as the weapons to enforce hate are too powerful and too readily available...making it all too convenient to attempt to enforce the will of the few on others not so like-minded.

Well said Bookie, Cali, Kurt, and our new found source of valid info, NYRED! It's a pleasure reading your posts... always has been.

I remembered reading the old Wall Street Journal editorial back a few years ago. When you get old, like me, your memory fades. It was actually April of 1999, and I found a link to a copy of it. http://www.pensionreform.org/eys/prosopers_wsj.htm

Interestingly enough, I don't see that the editorial says that Pinochet was being persecuted, except that there were irregularities in how the situation was unfolding, and those observations were handed to them by others, including people within the British government. In the end, whether a person wants to take umbrage with the WSJ report is purely a matter of what side of the issue they want to see. The question wasn't Pinochet's innocence as much as it was a matter of law, and if you attempt to prosecute a person the way the case unfolded, it amounts to persecution, because the letter of the law wasn't followed. In this case, it wasn't the WSJ that decided that it was over. It was the British High Courts. I doubt very much that they really gave a damn what the WSJ said.

On the other hand, the U.S. considered trying to bring Pinochet to our shores to stand trial for atrocities. It was decided it couldn't be done, by law. That happened well before the events in the UK. What irks me most is the fact that one of the reasons the U.S. did not pursue the issue too far was the fact that we had underhanded dealings with Pinochet, that helped him to overthrow the Allende government. It's obvious we couldn't go into the whole thing with clean hands.

Wolf