Sí, Ignacio, it was your imagination, I was referring to the writer's nationality, i.e. a Frenchman, el frances...

Where is the data to substantiate this? Has there been a poll? Were all intellectuals polled? How was the sampling done? Who is an intellectual?

Actually, there have been a lot of polls among the population. Also, there has been many manifests by intellectuals.

In Spain, polls indicated 90% against the war, plus, more than 2.000.000 people were demonstrating in Madrid, the bigger ever, plus hundreds of thousands in each major city.

I heard results also in France, Belgium, Germany, and even in Britain they had kind of a tie. Its in the UE news, unfortunately you probably don't get them at the USA, pity.

In France, the polls on Government support speeded up to maximums, that they are still enjoying in spite of the recession menace.

The data are there for you to see, in the Net and elsewhere.

Now you see, Booklady, that is why we waddle in such ignorance. If only we had access to the information only available to Europeans the scales would fall from our eyes and we would understand that only the sage and wily Europeans hold the answer to peace in our time.
Why then, why, do they hold their cards so close to their vest and not share their unique insight with their sons and daughters who fled from their stagnant and intolerable lands?
For some reason, I'm reminded of the elixir that the good Don Quixote prepared for Sancho. The good knight promises an elixir to heal even the gravest of scars but in the end, has the elixir vomited up all over himself.
I think it would comfort Ignacio greatly if he only knew how much the American press support his point of view. I've no doubt if a poll was held by the American media, 90 percent of Americans would object to the war.
Whether or not the majority of Europeans agree with the author of your previous article it is interesting that a European, and a Frenchman, nonetheless, would come to such a conclusion. There are obviously people of reason from all countries. Wouldn't it be more productive if Ignacio refutes specific issues from the article instead of calling it what he did.

Gazpacho:

I am NOT commenting your suspicions/impressions/imaginations on European ino, Don Quixote or "people of your ¿reason?". :p

I DID comment some aspects of the article up, where I wrote about the EU and UN attitude in recent wars. I said we weren't able to reach an agreement, but we helped in both the USA because we thought it was fair. War in Jugoslavia was even more painful because it was in our supposed area of influence.

However, most of the costs of the first Gulf war were paid by other countries than the USA, mainly the EU and Japan. And many european soldiers are now patrolling Afghanistan, which is a real increasing problem the USA left behind. There is more violence each day, and more and more resources and soldiers are needed.

Now, at your petition, I´ll comment the rest of the article:

the United States had only become a de facto empire in the past century more as a consequence of their economic power than their political will: the inverse of British or French imperialism

Now, this must be a joke! I can't believe this. The very Mark Twain, back in the 19th century spoke about the USA being imperialistic in Cuba and Puerto Rico, when the USA kicked Spain out of both (vital space, isn't it?). Puerto Rico "annexed" and Cuba a protectorate (until revolution).

But there are many many previous imperialisic acts and wars:

- Seizing lands to Mexico: California, ¿Nevada?, ¿Arizona?, Texas, and others.

- Seizing lands from the Indians, breaking your own peace agreements time after time: Middle and Central USA.

- Invading and conquering federated southern colonies, that, in spite of their (wrong, in my opinion) ideas on slavery, had the RIGHT acknowledged by your own laws, to sedece. That rght was violated, and slaves in the south came to be slaves in the north, with new theoretical rights .

But american HIstory has always been imperialistic: Philippines was for very many years, another protectorate, after the WWII.

Japan and Germany were so for about 10 years.

Of course, there is the small matter of stating a new state in Africa to get free of unwaned free black people: Liberia.

But nowadays, american imperialism had changed (till Irak). Why should America conquer a country if they can access their riches through manipulated prices of resources (USA and developed countries control world raw material markets, sinking third world economies) and being able to have military capacity around the world by having bases established through political pressure and gifts of part of the money obtained through unfair commerce?

Frist ruin a country, then give them enough as to survive in exchange of bases and cooperation. Sounds like a recipe for success, doesn't it?

American armies only ever went to war reluctantly, they only stayed in Korea or Germany as bulwarks against imminent aggression; no gesture was more popular in the United States than "bringing the boys back home

That always happened to any army in the world, after a war. I believe that Ulises troops, heating hands in the Troy bonfire were cheering, just like their loving ones back in Itaca.

The interventions in Afghanistan and Iraq, followed by occupations which we can predict will be long-term, are the result of a new strategy, at once justified by September 11

11th Spetember can doubtfully justify invasion of a country, because it was not made by a country, but for a terrorst organisation, but, anyway, if it were so, that was Afghanistan reason, that has not been questioned. Not Irak's.

No longer is any corner of the world safe from an American operation followed by occupation

So, now the USA have an excuse to invade whoever they want, the same way that they did in the war of Cuba, when (it is said) they blew up an old warship to have an excuse to enter the war and extend imperialism, that did not benefit the americans at all, quite the opposite (war expenses) but some rich bussinesmen that took profit.

the guerrillas in Iraq or Afghanistan will change nothing, on the contrary

We'll see. By the moment, they are costing the USA a LOT of money, that's rocketing deficit, and menacing to deepen the crisis (I think the recession is hiding under a couple of periods of good behaviour of economy because of war expenses positive effect - only in short term- in economy), and taking more and more american lifes, AFTER Bush said that war was over. Some call them terrorists too, others call them resistence, as must be caled anyone who is a patriot and whose country was invaded by the enemy.

A new state of affairs which is not just military, these interventions aim to create viable and, if possible, democratic states

Great jke too! The USA have never cared a damm for this. They have supported the ruthless tyrants along the world, including Saddam AND his gasing the kurds when it fited their plans, like pushing Pinochet to power, and supporting him, Videla, Noriega (who later happened to be related with drug-dealing), and so many others. I think te only people wo can believe this bullsh*t are some, not all of the americans. As for the rest of the world, we have that info and know History and the horror stories too well.

Its slow growth, worsened by the ruminations of the ecologists, is little by little transforming it into a museum which might be pleasant to live in for the elite but offers no windows of opportunity for the coming generations.

There is a confusion with "economic growth". A country may be "richer" if they have more of that, but their citizens, can, in spite, be poorer. I believe we are richer here in Europe than you at the States, because salaries divided by price levels are a better proportion. One of the richer countries in the world is, suposedy Japan, But tell this to a Japanese worker who has to live in a 40 meters wide apartment along with his 3 more members of the family and the apartment has a loan of 50 years (otherwise he couldn't pay it) that his sons or grandsons will end.

This takes a lot of time. I'll go on later.

The demonstrations and polls Ignacio is talking about were widely aired on the news, at least CNN anyway. I don't know if they were aired on network news (in conjunction with coverage of the massive protests in NYC and Chicago and throughout the US) but, frankly I would never even watch network news for coverage of something so important. There were several demonstrations in Madrid of about 2000+ people each.

Refuting claims of the author with examples is kind of useless because I can just as easily refute your examples with other ones and other reasons. How the author gets to his point can be debated all you want. It's if he gets there that matters. And I think the ultimate point he makes (which I pointed out in my previous post)is a valid one.

When somebody says a country is not imperialist, the only way to show the opposite (the one you are calling examples) is thorugh facts. If I am speaking on how the USA became a country of 50 states through seizing ¿38? and you think tha's only "an example", and then the other matters I mentioned, then, it seems that's not only information what you need. :o

And try to get better information, the ones I am speaking about, were about 2.000.¡000!+. I hope you just forgot the 0s.

For those who have Acrobat Reader

For those who don\'t

Folks,
Wanted to share the latest report from the Pew Research Center.
Titled Views of a Changing World 2003: War with Iraq Further Divides Global Publics, June 2003. This is the Summary report, a few pages, the big report is also available to read or download.

The results are fascinating and well worth reading the entire report.
Among the findings:
Notable among the findings is the opinion on the United Nations, which reflects what M. Guy said in his article I previously posted
Regarding the war views of other countries, they remain entrenched, especially in Spain:
However, overall opinion of the aftermath is:
The survey covers broader issues including globalization and the quality of life.
Worry about loss of national identity, which has previously been discussed on many threads in MM is also discussed on the survey.
Overall, another excellent survey of world opinion. The entire report is well worth the read. I find it illuminating as I listen to the concerns and viewpoints of our Spanish friends that the study does reflect the prevalent views, particularly about the war and its aftermath.

Agreed Mikey,

I didn't literally want a point by point rebutal of the article, but I didn't like what the article was originally referred to offhandedly. Obviously, Ignacio is much to intelligent for that.

Ignacio,
What can I say? Your rebuttal was magnificent. It isn't saying much, but your knowledge of our history is better than mine.
But what a negative interpretation of our history. Is that what the Europeans teach about the U.S? Does it really make them feel better about their own history?

Just a few points to debate: Mark Twain was above all a humorist. Albeit a very well travelled one. He liked to make fun of the way Americans look at themselves. That's what made him so popular. Americans have a real appreciation for self-deprecating humor. We criticize ourselves for our own frustrations with the world and don't blame our neighbors and nitpick every moment of their history that wasn't a shining one.

It is true, the U.S. has been colonialist, but we have willingly surrendered our conquered territories,well, most anyway, without external forces forcing us to. As for the Philippines, is there a Filippino that exist that wouldn't want to be part of the U.S. right now? I know a lot about this because my wife is Filippina. Unfortunately for the Philippines, making them part of the U.S. would have been economically disastrous for us then and now.

And as for the South having the right to seperate themselves from the rest of the country, that's what the war was all about. And as for our Southwestern states and Califonia, I can't imagine too many of their citizens wishing they were part of Mexico.

Please don't get me wrong. Your rebuttals are not mere opinions and I have heard many of these facts before, but are they contextual? For example, I could say that Spain is a bloodthirsty country because the Inquisition went on for so long, but I know better. I've cared enough to check my facts and I realize that my initial intuition was faulty.

The only reason I respond here is because I don't like the U.S. being raked over the coals. Were King Juan Carlos or Prime Minister Aznar to make an unpopular decision, I would of course have my own feelings about it, but I wouldn't beat the Spanish people up for it. And I wouldn't consider them evil, or self-serving, only doing what they think is best for their country if possibly misguided.

Ignacio,

I don't think you understood my post. Let me try and clarify it. I said EXAMPLES (facts) I did not say OPINIONS. I didn't tell you that what you said is false or fabricated. You presented facts and your interpretation of them. If you want to attach the word 'seize' and negative connotations to the annexation of states then fine. Historical interpretation is what makes history a great subject. However, I can easliy look at facts (examples) and re-interpret them. This is all I meant in my previous post. I did not say your examples are false.

I only mention the Madrid protests of 2000+ people because those are the ones my girlfriend called me from. She called my and told me there are more than 2000 people here so that is what I know. I assumed people heard of the 2 mil. people protest being that this is a Madrid board..

Last, I would say let's try to curb the sarcastic and snide postings under the disguise of friendly discussion. Unless of course you're not disguising them but I think you're above that.

Hello Gazpacho,
So nice to "hear" from you again!
Sadly, Gazpacho, I wish the Europeans held the "answer to peace in our times," but they are as anxious and uncertain in this new world political paradigm as we are. I think we have entered a new political paradigm that is underscored in both the first article by Guy and the Pew study. There is no easy answer to today's political dilemma. The roots of what we, Americans as well as Europeans, are facing now were planted by the Europeans in the 10th century, and has continued. Our problems have long roots.

The one redeeming point, as pointed out by the Pew study,is that the peoples of the world, including those in the Muslim world, are desirious of a more democratic lifestyle. That is indeed the best news that we can have in this century.
Saludos,
Carmen