Booklady, please use your brain. Please analyze the info. before quoting William Safire.

jlramos, it's not nice to tell people they are hallucinating or not using their brains just because you don't agree with them. I don't agree with this war either (I think Jimmy Carter was right to call it unjust ), but I know Fernando and Booklady have come to their own conclusions. I might try to persuade them otherwise over a caña someday, but not here!

jlramos,

Apparently facts don't have any effect on you. Your retort? Sarcasm without foundation. Both Fernando and Booklady are steadfastly against war, because of the pain and suffering it inflicts on others, but they both agree that there comes a time, when righteous people stand up and be counted. Apparently you'd rather use the ostrich method of dealing with problems. Just bury your head in the sand, and pretend it will just "go away."

In France; Ricin traces found in the subway. Now, guess who they arrested that has ricin? You got it, if you were listening. Al-Qaeda members. Now there are problems in Germany. Five arrests, all associated with Al-Qaeda, and all planning attacks in Germany, against German interests.

Despite the fact that both of these nations "kissed Saddam's arse," they would bring death to them. Now, isn't that a novel idea? Someone supports your issues, and you still are willing to kill their people? Does that mean anything to you?

The same applies to Russia, who's battle against militant Muslims continues, and at the same time, they say we have "no right" to enforce the mandates of the UN... because war is wrong. Excuse me? Aren't they at war with Chechnya? Aren't Chechnya's rebels the same people as Al-Qaeda, the Taliban, and yes, even supported through unofficial channels by Iraq? The last I heard... from UN sources no less.... this was fact.

Then there's Powell's offering to the UN, which included intercepted telephone messages where Iraqi officials admitted to having illegal WMD. Of course, when Hans Blix and his band of merry men arrived at the scenes where they had been stored, they were moved. Between Blix asking for road map directions on how to get to sites, a day or two earlier than they inspected, the bugs in their rooms, and on their phones, and even lip readers who were able to figure out what the inspectors were talking about, the sites were cleaned up, before the inspectors got there. Powell presented evidence to that effect, but the "Axis of Weasel" just laughed, and said it didn't matter.

I'm with Fernando and Booklady. People who stand up and are counted, when necessary, are to be respected.

As for everyone who feels "inconvenienced" by this war, apparently you don't understand the gravity of what is happening, or don't care. If it cuts into your plans, that's tough luck. There's more at stake in the world than your pleasure trip.

Then there's those who say that "It's nice that Spaniards don't hold the actions of the U.S. government against the people of the U.S." How trite. Nearly 70% of all Americans support our actions in the Gulf, and you're saying "We don't support our government?" I suggest you say that "You don't support our government." We - as a nation - do.

So make your own case against the war, but don't take the liberty of saying "We," when it's "You" who doesn't support our actions. If you want to be "popular" in Spain, do what you want. As for me, I want to be an American, and I shall remain proud of who I am. I will also embrace my Spanish friends, regardless of their convictions, just like they will embrace me. And, when I get back to Madrid, I will give Fernando the biggest hug you've ever seen, because he stood up for his convictions, even though it may not seem popular in some circles. We may not always see eye-to-eye, but I much prefer people who have the courage to stand up and being counted, over those who would bow to public opinion, just because it makes them "popular."

Hats off to Tara, Booklady, and Fernando! You've got my vote as being part of the "Tell it like it is society!"

Wolf

Hey guys, I think we should not discuss about the war here, the thread was to ask how safe can travel an American in Spain. I've tried to explain how are my personal feelings and also what I think are the generals feelings in Spain.
There is another thread in the Non-Spain discussion about the war. Let me suggest you to continue there and keep here with the original question.

Fernando,

Do you really think it's fair and reasonable to attack a country based on "what ifs?"?, most any nation could prepare a terrorist attack on us or on anyone else, so should Bush, Blair and Aznar decide to attack them all then?
I sincerely don't understand the conexion you make between the Moroccoan inmigrants coming to Spain and Sadam's regime, since when being a muslim means necessarily being a potential terrorist?
You ask what would happen if we suffered an attack by foreign terrorists; well, who knows?, but I don't see why you seem sure we would declare war on them; we have ETA, and so far there's no Rest-of-Spain-versus-Basque-Country civil war.

Booklady,

If this is not a war being declared pretty much unilaterally then why would people and organizations such as The Pope and the UN call it an unlawful war?
I think to blame all this on Chirac is a little bit too much, don't you think? Mr. Bush has appeared absolutely eager to start this nonsense since at least last October; otherwise, why would there have been a demonstration against it in Washington back then?

I have a question for US residents, I'm very curious about one thing; it's silly really, but I want to know whether the images of Bush rehearsing his first speech after the attacks started, while his face was being made up and his hair combed, and that we were all able to watch live here (and I'm guessing from at least the rest of European countries) was showed anywhere in the States?

One other thing, leaving aside for just a second, the most important factor (for me at least) in this whole scenario, the Iraqi civilians' lives, doesn't anybody else feel sad that places such as palaces, and other types of historic buildings from none other than a country like Iraq, in which territory according to most historians the birth of western civilization took place (yes, I'm not 'alucinando'!, the gardens of Babilon, the Tower of Babel, etc....) are being destroyed like it's nothing? How would Bush, or any of us for that matter, feel if someone bombed Mount Rushmore, the Statue of Liberty or any other American landmark?

pim,

What part of the evidence presented to the UN by the U.S. don't you understand? What part of the evidence that has surfaced as to German and French participation in rebuilding the Iraqi WMD, that the UN has already admitted is happening, don't you understand? What part of the fact that the Russians were given chief brokerage of Iraqi oil, that has been the only part of their economy that is stable don't you understand? You may have missed all this, and you may have missed the fact that the last two batches of al-Qaeda operatives that have been introduced to Spain, for covert operations in Spain, were actually trained in the Iraqi desert, and supported by Saddam.

As for the "land marks" you indicated we are attacking, where did you get that idea? Is this some "future plan" by our people? Obviously we haven't attacked them, and wouldn't, unless the Iraqis put a large military complex around them. Of course, if they did that, they'd be painting a great big bullseye on them, and they very well could be destroyed, but that would be the responsibility of Saddam and his government.

One look at the scenes that are being broadcast live from the "front" would tell you what's happening. Even interviews with Iraqi soldiers who are surrendering tells the facts. These people have been totally abused by the Baath government under Hussein, and are actually thankful they will be freed from the grip of the tyrant.

Of course, what he did within his borders is nobody's business, right? He could use chemical warfare against the Kurds and that was okay? He could systematically try to kill off the Shiites in the south and it was okay?

Obviously when people talk about "humanitarian efforts," just so they can oppose what is happening, they do so without facing the truth. The fact that the Hussein government has systematically killed, and starved, millions of their own people, for their own political ends.

You might want to think about the reality of war, and what it sometimes brings. In this case, the war isn't against the Iraqi people, just a tyrant and the army that would stand beside him, and carry out his blood bath against his own.

Of course, if not bringing this man down is your cup of tea, so be it. As for me, it's time tyrants like him be brought to justice. He's flaunted the resolutions from the UN in your faces, and ours, and you'd do nothing about it.

Please understand, this is not intended as a personal attack against you. I just wish people would read more, and try to really understand what's been happening within the Iraqi borders for years. It's time that the message be sent around the world, that tyrants, and those who support terrorism, will be brought to justice, whether or not it's "inconvenient" to business plans for countries like Russia, France, and Germany.

Also, I fail to understand what someone rehearsing their speech, or having make-up put on prior to giving the speech has to do with anything. Isn't that kind of a pathetic reach to find something to complain about?

Wolf

Wolf, I think pim (who is clearly VERY well-informed) was referring to Bush's entirely inappropriate fist-pumping antics (he pumped his fist and called, "feels good!") prior to putting on his "serious face" for his "war has begun" speech. Pim, that wasn't shown here, but was mentioned by a few news outlets.

pim,

I apologize about the issue related to Bush's speech. I wasn't aware of what he'd done, with the "fist pumping." That would be totally inappropriate, and uncalled for. Stupid on his part. He's supposed to be a leader, not a clown.

Thank you Tara. I do want to keep the record straight.

Also, as a further note, I am not a Bush fan. I voted against him, and will do so next time around, and will be visibly involved in the campaign to defeat him. I don't like his attitude, or most of his antics. Still, whether it's him or anyone else in office, I support the issue with Iraq. It has nothing to do with the President in office, but a personal conviction related to human rights, and the right of self-determination by people.

Wolf

Wolf,

I guess if there's something I haven't understood, it's the same thing the UN didn't understand.

You don't understand my little comment on the images shown by mistake of Bush getting prepared to deliver that most important speech obviously because you didn't get to watch them, which was all I was curious about, because I had heard that the speech hadn't been broadcasted live in the US.
I did watch them, and number 1: I found a little bit obscene that Mr. Bush was smiling at some points, remember this was happening at the same time the bombings were beginning, but that's just me I guess. Number 2: I don't quite understand why he wouldn't be capable of going live on TV for you all to see. Number 3: It makes me feel a little bit worried that someone whose team manages to let such behind-the-scenes images be shown at such a crucial moment is handling a massive attack on a country “as we speak”. Number 4: When I hear Mr. Bush say he's doing all he's doing to save and defend not only the US citizens, but all of us, I can't help thinking, -please don't, really, don't defend ME in this way.- Number 5: For some reason, this all makes me think of a concept you many times have referred to, propaganda, but that's just me again.

Already some of what are called Sadam's palaces have been hit by missiles, who knows how ancient and precious those buildings are, and do you really think Sadam was actually located there just waiting to be killed? Anyway, that was just a rambling thought I've been having and I thought I'd share it with the board since I haven't heard anybody else worrying about that. Of course we're all experiencing other much more obvious “side-effects” from this whole situation such as the enormous financial loses for the (at least Spanish) tourism related companies, the deteriorated relationship between some European nations, etc….
Sorry but I can't help it if I love beautiful things (very, very old buildings in this case), I love this sentence from one of singer Jewel's songs: “Maybe if we're surrounded in beauty, someday we will become what we see….”

There's one thing I do not understand, and that is how some people, some of you even, seem surprised to find out the Iraqi regime has not gotten rid of all his weapons of mass destruction after all. I, on the other hand, think it's only natural; to be a tyrant, criminal, dictator, etc….doesn't necessarily make someone stupid (a Saint, or so naïve rather), that I can imagine Sadam would REALLY destroy everything he has to defend himself and his country while he's being threatened with war for several months, specially with Bush, whom he might consider his natural enemy, so adamantly wanting to get rid of HIM. That sounds to me like: “OK, you want to kick my butt, here's my ass(leaning over)”….remember we're not talking about the most reasonable of men!….
(Pardon my French)

(Gee!, these days, I really hope that, inspite my English, I'm making myself understood and not misinterpreted)

P.S.: T, thanks so much for your e-mail, I loved the Benjamin Franklin quote.

Sorry Wolf, I just read your last post; I did not get to see the "feeling good part" but the bit I did see was enough, he wasn't smiling broadly or anything, but his half smile (maybe caused by nervousness, who knows?), really made me feel even sadder than I already was.

I love your post, specially the part where you talk about human rights.

So any active war must be supported? I thought that idea was discredited several times over during the 20th century (during the Nuremberg trials, during the Vietnam War, etc.) When a government lies to its people and the world about the terms and reasons for an attack, it is not only patriotic to voice opposition, but it seems to me of questionable morality to do otherwise.

I have friends who are stationed in the Gulf. I admire their patriotism and willingness to place themselves in danger for what they believe is a just cause. I hope they come home safely. But that does not change the fact that the government that sent them there was doing something unjustified. I feel much the same way toward Vietnam veterans I know.

The Bush administration has been dishonest about this war from the start. It has justified it with emotional allusions to the tragedies of 9-11, while admitting when pressed that there is no reason to connect Iraq with terrorist activities. Judging from Ari Fleischer's press conferences and Colin Powell's public presentations, not only has the administration failed to produce a scrap of evidence linking Hussein to Al Quaeda or similar groups, they can't even come up with a vague rumor to link them. But they used the Big Lie approach: say something often enough and people will stop questioning it.

The administration spent months seeking U.N. support for a military assault, and yet repeatedly described that activity as an "attempt to avert war." That's outright Orwellian: using words to mean their opposite.

The administration stated that Hussein could avoid a U.S. invasion of Iraq by going into exile. However, when the administration was finally asked what events would follow if Hussein did that, the response began (and I paraphrase but closely), "Well, first we'd send in our troops...."

We may have another Vietnam on our hands.

You blame the leader who insisted on continuing to use diplomatic means for the fact that the U.S. did not continue to use diplomatic means? All right, now we've moved from Orwell to Lewis Carroll.

I find it hard to believe that people are branding France as a bad ally. The word "ally" doesn't mean someone who will do whatever you tell them to. A true ally -- a true friend -- is someone who will tell you when they think you're about to do something incredibly stupid, dangerous or wrong, whether you want to hear it or not. Yes, Chirac has political motives, but Bush's are more dangerous.

If there are reprisals on U.S. soil, there will be a western political leader to blame, and it won't be Chirac.

The problem with this whole line of reasoning is it contains too many "mays" and "mights." The American way, in theory, is to hold off making accusations (or attacks) until there's evidence. One of the things the U.S. has been proud of in the past is that we didn't approve of first strikes. But then, we also used to feel superior to the Soviet Union because our government didn't spy on its own people and open their mail.