Elections in Spain

[Fendetestas]

Funny, and I'm thinking of a film called "The Mouse that Roared", I think, although I don't believe it was set in Spain. In that one the locals declared war on the USA so they could be conquered and given massive aid.

That film appeared precisely in 1959, perhaps you were shocked by it and believed it was real? The Mouse that roared

It's a Peter Sellers film in which an imaginary central european nation declares war on the USA so they can surender and be given massive aid... the problem is that they win and seize control of the most deadly weapon imaginable, which had just been developed in New York. During a nuclear attack simulation, when all the streets are empty, the tiny army enters the laboratory and gets the machine and the inventor...

 

[Elind]

That film appeared precisely in 1959, perhaps you were shocked by it and believed it was real? The Mouse that roared

Perhaps we are getting carried away with connections, and I don't think those communists (fascists?) were trying to trigger an invasion.

 

[Peskanov]

No I'm not joking and it may have been a bit more like 1959 so you can tell me what the risks those people faced then were, but it happened and made an impression on me at the time.

Well, I am too young to give any real information about what the people thinked then...but I found that reaction really puzzling.
Franco's fascism regime started at the end of our civil war, in 1939. Spain was isolated economically, the war and the isolation left the country in the misery.
In 1959 Eisenhower visited Spain and Franco was jumping of happiness, he wanted Spain to be included in the Marshall plan. 1 million of Spaniards received Eisenhower in the along 20 Km of road! The message: Viva EEUU! (USA in Spanish).
Most Spaniards think that our current wealth is mostly due to USA money...btw, Franco died in 1975, the regime died with him.

 

[Fendetestas]

Perhaps we are getting carried away with connections, and I don't think those communists (fascists?) were trying to trigger an invasion.

You never know...

Seriously know, they probably were neither communists nor fascists, just some poor uneducated workers with no political ideas of their own.

In the 1950's the isolation Spain was suffering due to its totalitarian government ended when the USA realized it had an important strategical position and that Franco hated the communists even more than them. The USA gave Spain money and military equipment (mostly outdated WWII material, but some newer things, like Patton tanks) and in return Spain became its ally and gave the USA terrain to establish military bases which still exist of course.

 

[Elind]

You never know...

Seriously know, they probably were neither communists nor fascists, just some poor uneducated workers with no political ideas of their own.

Probably. I think it was my father (he was Swedish) who labeled them, but I lived in Europe for some time after, and being anti-American, in a less political sense than today, was always a little fashionable, and not only in Spain.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Elind:

As to the UN issue, when was the last time the UN actually went into a hostile environment with loaded weapons? (Don't say Korea.)

I'm probably not up to date, but they went in guns blazing in Kuwait, 1991.

The UN solution would be to get out and damn the consequences (or leave them for the US to address).

And the US solution would be to give up (see Vietnam). It's fun making childish generalizations.

It's amazing how fickle friends can be. I can remember driving in Spain as a young boy with my parents in an American car in the mid 1950s, and having Spanish workers on the roads yell "Americans Go Home". Then they called themselves communists, now they are socialists. Nothing much has changed it seems.

The US calls itself democratic and the land of freedom. Then they put their own (Japanese looking) citizens in concentration camps during WWII. Now they have a similar "no-rights" camp in Guantanamo. I guess nothing much has changed.

 

[CapelDodger]

from a_unique_person:

Don't foret, to a large extent, WWII was merely the conclusion of WWI.

You're sure of that? There were actually a number of overlapping conflicts that come under the WW2 banner (which is thereby restricted to 1941-45 in many minds). One in the Pacific, one (concluded) in Western Europe, one ancient one in Eastern Europe (which may now be over). What we have at the moment isn't like any of them really, it's more like an insurrection such as the T'ai Ping (a cult-based revolt in China) but on a world scale.

Easy targets, rather than the hard ones. But then that is the classic guerilla warfare tactic ...

This is terrorism rather than classic guerilla warfare, and terrorism is not broad-based. That's one reason it has always been rejected by Socialism. The classic version is a military exercise aimed at wearing-down an occupying force until the balance of capability is reversed. It operates at home and needs the sympathy of the overwhelming majority of the population where it operates. It almost always ends up in classic military actions. The Wahabbists don't visualise that kind of outcome - not after Afghanistan - but rather a collapse of modern society due to its inferior moral rectitude. Which ain't going to happen. At some point they are going to call down the thunder on their own heads, and hurry the day, say I. I want to see the Cruise-Cam shots of the Great Mosque looming up, and never more so than at the moment.

 

[Elind]

Elind:I'm probably not up to date, but they went in guns blazing in Kuwait, 1991.
And the US solution would be to give up (see Vietnam). It's fun making childish generalizations.
The US calls itself democratic and the land of freedom. Then they put their own (Japanese looking) citizens in concentration camps during WWII. Now they have a similar "no-rights" camp in Guantanamo. I guess nothing much has changed.

No, nothing much HAS changed based on your comments. The UN went into Kuwait? Give us a break. The US managed a slick set of resolution that gave tacit approval, but if you think that war was by the UN you were on another planet. Denmark maybe?

Vietnam was a lesson alright, but only the US seems to have learned it. Fight to win, not to kiss ass.

Bringing in WWII and the Japanese internment (sorry, American internment) into a 2004 context and comparing to those degenerates in Cuba is worse than silly. It's insulting, but expected.

 

[a_unique_person]

from a_unique_person:

You're sure of that? There were actually a number of overlapping conflicts that come under the WW2 banner (which is thereby restricted to 1941-45 in many minds). One in the Pacific, one (concluded) in Western Europe, one ancient one in Eastern Europe (which may now be over). What we have at the moment isn't like any of them really, it's more like an insurrection such as the T'ai Ping (a cult-based revolt in China) but on a world scale.

This is terrorism rather than classic guerilla warfare, and terrorism is not broad-based. That's one reason it has always been rejected by Socialism. The classic version is a military exercise aimed at wearing-down an occupying force until the balance of capability is reversed. It operates at home and needs the sympathy of the overwhelming majority of the population where it operates. It almost always ends up in classic military actions. The Wahabbists don't visualise that kind of outcome - not after Afghanistan - but rather a collapse of modern society due to its inferior moral rectitude. Which ain't going to happen. At some point they are going to call down the thunder on their own heads, and hurry the day, say I. I want to see the Cruise-Cam shots of the Great Mosque looming up, and never more so than at the moment.

No doubt. But the main driving force was Hitler and Germany. They set the whole thing rolling.

I wouldn't want terrorists attacking me either, but you have to wonder about the wisdom of stirring up a hornets nest.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Wrath of the Storm:

If I were a Spanish citizen, that would have been a significant factor for me. I don't appreciate being lied to - and worse, they did so in such a transparent manner that I'd feel they'd insulted my intelligence in the process.

Is it possible it appeared so transparent because they weren't concealing anything? I don't think much more has come out since the anti-war demonstrators were accusing the Gummint of concealing the stuff they'd announced. Perhaps I'm a little defensive here, I thought it was ETA at first as well. And I know quite a lot about them; they were stars in Franco's days.

Hi Cleopatra:

Well three days before the elections ( I mean on the eve of the event) the polls showed that Aznar was more that 5% ahead of the Socialists so, there are serious reason to believe that they changed their opinion vecause of this terrorist act.

They may have been little change of actual opinions but a change in proportion, given the turnout. That said, the swing does seem too large for that. Perhaps the actual difference in voting intention was larger than is apparent - more people voted who wouldn't have, and others didn't vote who would have. In whichever case, I'm unimpressed by the idea of only bothering to vote when you think the war's come home but not when it's in far-off Iraq, even though you were sort of, you know, like, against it?.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Elind:

No, nothing much HAS changed based on your comments. The UN went into Kuwait? Give us a break. The US managed a slick set of resolution that gave tacit approval, but if you think that war was by the UN you were on another planet. Denmark maybe?

Sorry, but what are you mumbling about? The UN as such doesn't have any forces. The UN can only approve the use of force by its member states. Any action taken by member states in this regard is a "UN action". There is no other type of UN intervention.

I believe your question has been answered.

Vietnam was a lesson alright, but only the US seems to have learned it. Fight to win, not to kiss ass.

I certainly hoped that something was learned from that clear defeat.

Bringing in WWII and the Japanese internment (sorry, American internment) into a 2004 context and comparing to those degenerates in Cuba is worse than silly. It's insulting, but expected.

So, you have no rebutal? How expected.

 

[Elind]

Elind:Sorry, but what are you mumbling about? The UN as such doesn't have any forces. The UN can only approve the use of force by its member states. Any action taken by member states in this regard is a "UN action". There is no other type of UN intervention.

I believe your question has been answered.
I certainly hoped that something was learned from that clear defeat.
So, you have no rebutal? How expected.

I've known some Danes, but most were a lot more polite. I guess not everyone has the benefit of a civil upbringing, including those in Guantanamo.

To say the liberation of Kuwait was a UN action is fantasy. The US managed to back it's opponents into a corner where they couldn't do anything but give tacit approval, given the blatant intransigence of Iraq, but to call it a UN operation is the height of fantasy.

Rebutal to what? Vietnam? You haven't said anything that calls for more than has been said.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Elind:

I've known some Danes, but most were a lot more polite. I guess not everyone has the benefit of a civil upbringing, including those in Guantanamo.

Relevance?

To say the liberation of Kuwait was a UN action is fantasy. The US managed to back it's opponents into a corner where they couldn't do anything but give tacit approval, given the blatant intransigence of Iraq, but to call it a UN operation is the height of fantasy.

It was a UN action. This is a fact, whatever your fantasy is telling you.

Rebutal to what? Vietnam? You haven't said anything that calls for more than has been said.

A rebutal of the comparison between the US interning it's own citizens in a camp despite the conflict with their Constitution and the US interning prisoners of war in a camp not on US soil in order to likewise deprive them of basic rights.

Try to keep up, my dear Elind.

 

[CapelDodger]

from a_unique_person:

No doubt. But the main driving force was Hitler and Germany. They set the whole thing rolling.

Not in the Pacific, where the Japanese invaded first Manchuria and then China proper in the 1930's. None of that (or the earlier occupation of Korea and Formosa/Taiwan) was influenced by, or influenced, events in Europe - except insofar as it could be used as an argument for appeasement by the imperial powers. The Japanese were going to come up against the US whatever happened in Europe. Sorry, I'm horribly pedantic about history, these things put me on edge if I don't say something.

Upwellings like the T'ai Ping, or Peter the Hermit in medieval Germany or the middle-class urban terrorists of more recent times are a better parallel. They're based on a cult, they're directed against modernity (whatever their claims) and their methods are directed towards suppressing rationality. They can't win over rational, practical people and they can't keep any mass support they might be able to gather because they can't deliver. The ways of the past are no solution to the problems of the present. This will pass, but at a huge cost.

 

[CapelDodger]

from eland:

Vietnam was a lesson alright, but only the US seems to have learned it. Fight to win, not to kiss ass.

Were that the lesson the US learnt they would deserve the "stupid" label that is so often hung on them. Vietnam was fought to free the Vietnamese from the Vietnamese and to establish the authority of the legitimate Vietnamese government once the US could create one they could stick to for more than ten minutes. The only legitimate government of Vietnam was the popular one in control of the country after the Japanese surrender, and that was the one that fought first the Japanese, then the British (the French weren't immediately in any state to re-occupy the country they'd surrendered to the Japanese without a fight) then the French (paid for by the US) then the US and was the progenitor of the one it's got now. Not a difficult lesson to learn. Don't fight a fantasy war with real people and real munitions.

So anyway, how's the domino effect going these days? That was not predicated on the US holding out until 1973, you know, it was predicated on the US not losing. Seems to have been something of a damp squib. Like yellow rain in Cambodia and the more recent WMD fiasco.

 

[demon]

Two days ago, the millions of Spaniards who turned out to protest against the atrocities in Madrid were being lauded everywhere, by press and politicians alike for their dignity and courage in the face of terrorism. That was before the result of the general election.
Now I get the distinct impression from the same commentators and right wingers here that rightful victory has somehow been cruelly snatched from the PP by the same millions of Spaniards who turned out to protest because they have caved in under terrorism.
Spain was 90% against the war so what`s the big suprise? So what if the polls had the PP ahead before the election...polls are frequently wrong

The people who don`t like this result are those who don`t like socialists (tough), and are pissed that this is one regime change that the US didn`t manufacture. If ever there was a vote for European solidarity, this was it. It reflects the solidarity of the anti-war movement in Europe.
Any other analysis, given what the vast majority of the Spanish population has shown it wants, is just a reflection of the elite`s disatisfaction at "stupid" people, that bunch of chorizo eating surrender monkeys who haven`t played the game as expected. Instead and rightly so, they have put their own interests first for once and refused to dance to the tune of the deceitful, greedy and powerful.
As usual there are plenty of other parrots rat poisened by the media to do that for them.

 

[CapelDodger]

from eland:

To say the liberation of Kuwait was a UN action is fantasy.

There was no problem with UN approval for the expulsion of Iraq from Kuwait. It fits exactly with the mandate of the UN - a clear and undeniable aggressive violation of the borders of a sovereign state. The bulk of the material forces were provided by the US - which has a military budget rather larger than everybody else's combined and consumes a vast amount of Middle East oil - but there was no problem in getting UN approval for the expulsion by force of Iraq from Kuwait. This was only 15 years ago, weren't you watching? The situation within Iraq is a completely different subject. The UN is formed on two foundation principles: no border shall change anytime anywhere ever (unless it really can't be helped, and that takes a lot of blood-proof), and nothing that occurs within a soveriegn state is any business of the UN. Without those bases it could never have been formed. That's what made the Iraq war problematic.

 

[Elind]

Elind:Relevance?
It was a UN action. This is a fact, whatever your fantasy is telling you.
A rebutal of the comparison between the US interning it's own citizens in a camp despite the conflict with their Constitution and the US interning prisoners of war in a camp not on US soil in order to likewise deprive them of basic rights.

Try to keep up, my dear Elind.

You and Demon should get together more, you have a lot in common.

 

[DanishDynamite]

You and Demon should get together more, you have a lot in common.

Sorry to see you are so pathetic and clueless, Elind. I had hoped for some sort of informed debate. Oh well.

Back under the bridge with you, my friend. And remember, don't try to take on the third Billy Goat.

 

[CapelDodger]

from Zee German:

If the Spanish leave now, the Polish and and Italians are probably next, an attack in GB might bring down Blair as well and should the British troups leave Iraq, the US couldn't possibly keep things in order any more.

I think it's a great mistake to mix up Iraq and Wahabbist terrorism. There is no connection (except in the way that Wahabbists have been able to expand their operations into Mesopotamia where they couldn't operate before). As I'm sure you'd agree, the idea that Saddam would give chemical weapons to people that hated him when he depended on hiding in bunkers is laughable. He wanted them for himself because they're really scary; is he going to spread them around? I don't think so. These two subjects have become conflated by both sets of propagandists. The Wahabbists will strike when and where they can, just as they did before Iraq and just as they will until they're snuffed out.