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

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

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

Castiza,

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

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

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

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

el viajero,

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

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

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

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

Wolf

Hi again, Wolf --

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

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

There... my good deed for the day.

Not unilaterally (or nearly unilaterally).

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

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

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

Just my 2c worth.

Thanks! I appreciate hearing your POV as well.

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

Saludos.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Wolf

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

AMEN, NEW YORK RED!

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

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

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