Elections in Spain

[Elind]

from eland:

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.

Yes I was watching, and living in Kuwait at the time.

Let's just pretend for a moment that the UN, with the US as just another relatively quiet member, tried to push for a military action in Kuwait. It would never have happened. The circumstances were such that the UN simply could not, in this case, come up with a clear opposition to an attack, but it was not for lack of trying by many members who wanted the usual sanctions approach.

As to the comparison with Iraq second time around, yes the situation is not identical, but the regime in Iraq was. It's perhaps a personal distinction because I saw first hand what they did in Kuwait, but I make no difference between Usama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as far as the future threat to us all is concerned, except that with Russian, French and other support (and profiteers of all nationalities) there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that Saddam would have had a massive WMD program running the day after the UN dropped it's sanctions, which would have been by today, easily, and Libya would have been happy to resell Pakistani materials and knowledge.

I don't claim a lot in common with President Bush, but on that one issue I am in full agreement.

It may go against historical conventions but for the UN to hold, given it's charter, that "nothing that occurs within a soveriegn state is any business of the UN." is an insult to the charter; which is not to say that the solution is always invasion.

 

[Elind]

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.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Elind:

Yes I was watching, and living in Kuwait at the time.

Let's just pretend for a moment that the UN, with the US as just another relatively quiet member, tried to push for a military action in Kuwait. It would never have happened. The circumstances were such that the UN simply could not, in this case, come up with a clear opposition to an attack, but it was not for lack of trying by many members who wanted the usual sanctions approach.

It was a bonafide UN intervention. Try to live with that fact.

As to the comparison with Iraq second time around, yes the situation is not identical, but the regime in Iraq was. It's perhaps a personal distinction because I saw first hand what they did in Kuwait, but I make no difference between Usama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as far as the future threat to us all is concerned, except that with Russian, French and other support (and profiteers of all nationalities) there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that Saddam would have had a masive WMD program running the day after the UN dropped it's sanctions, which would have been by today, easily, and Libya would have been happy to resell Pakistani materials and knowledge.

Do you have something of interest to add? Anything with the slightest bit of un-prejudiced worth?

I don't claim a lot in common with President Bush, but on that one issue I am in full agreement.

Fine.

It may go against historical conventions but for the UN to hold, given it's charter, that "nothing that occurs within a soveriegn state is any business of the UN." is an insult to the charter; which is not to say that the solution is always invasion.

Not understood. Perhaps you could rephrase in English?

 

[Elind]

Elind:It was a bonafide UN intervention. Try to live with that fact.
Do you have something of interest to add? Anything with the slightest bit of un-prejudiced worth?
Fine.
Not understood. Perhaps you could rephrase in English?

 

[DanishDynamite]

 

[a_unique_person]

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

No, I'm a troll and you are a moron.

What many fail to realise is that the UN does no have an armed force it can call on as it pleases. They are all provided by the members of the UN, at the pleasure.

When it suits the US, it will join in a peacekeeping mission. There are plenty going on right now, around the world, many of them supported by it's members who are the poorest and least able to help. Get your head out of Rupert's rags and learn something.

 

[Elind]

No, I'm a troll and you are a moron.

What many fail to realise is that the UN does no have an armed force it can call on as it pleases. They are all provided by the members of the UN, at the pleasure.

When it suits the US, it will join in a peacekeeping mission. There are plenty going on right now, around the world, many of them supported by it's members who are the poorest and least able to help. Get your head out of Rupert's rags and learn something.

Enough.

You act like a 12 year old brat flexing small muscles. There are many interesting and knowledgable people here that it's interesting to debate with and learn from. You are not one of them.

Post away if you like to see your own words, but not with me.

 

[demon]

"You act like a 12 year old brat flexing small muscles"

A nice projection there methinks.
wou got your wittle botty spanked in another thread for making up stories and fibbing didn`t wou, now wou is just acting up wike the naughty wittle scamp wou is...aww, but cute.

Anytime you want to supply the evidence you said you had concerning your statements about the camp xray people and your accusations against me feel free. "I can`t be bothered" just doesn`t sound convincing.
As I said before, go for it.

 

[Reginald]

Now, there's one silly generalization, if I ever saw one.
I guess you mean something like "Europeans are not like right wing Americans with a military background"? That would be correct then.



Be honest rik, if you think Europeans in general and Spaniards in particular are cowards, just say so. Don't hide behind PCness, it's so not you.



What makes you so sure? Suppose WTC had happened AFTER the US invaded Iraq (the given reasons applied independently from 9/11, didn't they?) just before an election with majority forecasts similar to those in Spain. Don't you think that exactly the same thing could have happened?



Here, I agree. The question remains, what are the suitable weapons in this war. Invading countries doesn't really seem to help. I guess, Al Quaida actually profited from the Iraq thing. They probably didn't get any WMD (because there apparently weren't any) but I don't want to know how many conventional explosives from Iraq got in the wrong hands before the coallition could secure them and how many skilled killers applied as new recruits for AQ.

The one thing that bothers me about the situation in Spain is the announcement of withdrawal from Iraq before the situation is stabilized. 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. What IMHO is needed right now is a major international envolvement in Iraq. The US government might not like it but they should swallow the pill and ask for international support through the UN asap.

Zee

While I agree with the bulk of this post Zee, I'm not so sure that an attack on the UK would have that effect. I obviously can't speak for other nations, but in my experience, specifically with that of the Falklands and Mrs Thatcher, I have found that any serious attack upon the peoples of the UK has lead to a crystalisation of opinion behind the government of the day.

It's not to difficult to quantify either. A look at the poll ratings Of Thatcher prior to, during and after the Falklands conflict are telling.
I think it has a lot to do with the attitude of opposition politicians at these times. I am basing a lot of what I say on personal observation of these things I admit.

I don't want this to come over as a "We will get 'em" arrogance, but these things have historically brought out a certain unification of purpose within the UK.

 

[richardm]

While I agree with the bulk of this post Zee, I'm not so sure that an attack on the UK would have that effect. I obviously can't speak for other nations, but in my experience, specifically with that of the Falklands and Mrs Thatcher, I have found that any serious attack upon the peoples of the UK has lead to a crystalisation of opinion behind the government of the day.

That's certainly true, but if the attack was seen as being made as a result of something like going to war in Iraq, which a good proportion of the population didn't want us to do... I dunno, it might be different. Could be wrong, of course; the British public are difficult enough to read at the best of times.

 

[Reginald]

That's certainly true, but if the attack was seen as being made as a result of something like going to war in Iraq, which a good proportion of the population didn't want us to do... I dunno, it might be different. Could be wrong, of course; the British public are difficult enough to read at the best of times.

It's very tricky to describe these things without falling to the level of Jingoism. I think if we were to consider (and I may be mistaken but I've not seen withdrawal of troops as one of the Conservative points for inclusion in their next manifesto) withdrawing our troops, it may be perceived as a defeat, irrespective of the validity of the reasons for them being there in the first place. I guess what I am trying to say is that a refusal to be intimidated and baulking at defeat are two traits that IMHO might well override any previous reservations the majority of the UK populace had.

 

[ZeeGerman]

While I agree with the bulk of this post Zee, I'm not so sure that an attack on the UK would have that effect. I obviously can't speak for other nations, but in my experience, specifically with that of the Falklands and Mrs Thatcher, I have found that any serious attack upon the peoples of the UK has lead to a crystalisation of opinion behind the government of the day.

It's not to difficult to quantify either. A look at the poll ratings Of Thatcher prior to, during and after the Falklands conflict are telling.
I think it has a lot to do with the attitude of opposition politicians at these times. I am basing a lot of what I say on personal observation of these things I admit.

I don't want this to come over as a "We will get 'em" arrogance, but these things have historically brought out a certain unification of purpose within the UK.

I certainly hope that you are right. The last thing Iraq needs right now is GB calling back her troups. I think that major credit for keeping things in Iraq in relative order (especially in the shiite south) belongs to the British soldiers.

Zee

 

[BillyTK]

While I agree with the bulk of this post Zee, I'm not so sure that an attack on the UK would have that effect. I obviously can't speak for other nations, but in my experience, specifically with that of the Falklands and Mrs Thatcher, I have found that any serious attack upon the peoples of the UK has lead to a crystalisation of opinion behind the government of the day.

It's not to difficult to quantify either. A look at the poll ratings Of Thatcher prior to, during and after the Falklands conflict are telling.
I think it has a lot to do with the attitude of opposition politicians at these times. I am basing a lot of what I say on personal observation of these things I admit.

I don't want this to come over as a "We will get 'em" arrogance, but these things have historically brought out a certain unification of purpose within the UK.

Interesting points, but I'm not too sure if the Falklands conflict is a useful example, considering a number of factors such as its remoteness and the events which led to the conflict—someone makes a land-grab for an island on the other side of the world that few people had even heard of—and the general atmosphere of the UK at that time—a government coming towards the end of its tenure, having failed on a number of election promises. What might be more useful is to look at the public response to IRA attacks on the UK mainland, such as the bombing of the Arndale Centre, Manchester. IIRC this wasn't a factor in John Major and the Tories' defeat defeat in the election the following year.

Doubtless an Al-Queda attack on the UK will polarise public opinion, but considering the level of support for Iraq invasion, and subsequent revelations about dossiers and WMDs, I'm not too sure whether this lead to increases in jingoism, xenophobia and support for Bush's War on Terror or a re-evaluation of our alliance with the US (where's Harold Wilson when you need him?). What worries me is, if the former, the political capital it will provide for extremist parties like the BNP. And anyway, if there's one country in the world that should know you don't fight terrorism with conventional warfare, it should be ours.

 

[epepke]

90% of the Spanish population were opposed to the war in Iraq, according to some polls.

Is it really so surprising that the government should be heavily thumped in the following election?

No, not at all. However, even if the bombings actually had no effect on the outcome of the election, it will widely be perceived as having an effect on the election, and this will not be good.

One of the stories I keep hearing is that Al Queda set off some bombs in Spain because of the involvement of Spain in the invasion and occupation of Iraq, which they perceive as bad. I've said before that I think it's still a bit premature to come to that conclusion.

But let's assume that it's true and try to use reason on it. That would mean Al Qaeda set out to do something destructive, 90% of the vicims of which would be people who opposed the invasion and occupation of Iraq, with the remaining 10% being collateral damage, as it were. So the attack was directly upon the people who wanted Spain out of Iraq. As opposed, say, to an assassination attempt or an attack on the government itself, which would at least make some sort of sense.

This strongly suggests to me that the reasoning of Al Qaeda is divorced from what I and many other people would consider sound reasoning. At best, this casts serious doubt on any facile explanations about why Al Qaeda do the particular things they do.

 

[rikzilla]

Now, there's one silly generalization, if I ever saw one.
I guess you mean something like "Europeans are not like right wing Americans with a military background"? That would be correct then.

Why is that a "silly generalization"?...It is based upon observation of real mass reactions to real comperable events. The 9/11 attacks brought GWB the highest approval rating of any American President in history for a while at least. In Spain the reaction could not have been more opposite. Not only that, the amount of destruction and loss of life in Madrid was less than 10% of the 9/11 attacks. So, what conclusion would you reach if you were a terrorist? I don't just mean Al Qaeda...perhaps they will move on to other targets....I mean ANY terrorist with an axe to grind against ANY present or future Spanish government?

Be honest rik, if you think Europeans in general and Spaniards in particular are cowards, just say so. Don't hide behind PCness, it's so not you.

As I said, I think Spain has been victimized enough. I don't think these people are cowards,...I think they are pacifists. I just don't think pacifism works. If it did then Neville Chamberlain would be the hero of WWII, not Churchill and the other "warmongers" who stood up to Der Führer.

What makes you so sure? Suppose WTC had happened AFTER the US invaded Iraq (the given reasons applied independently from 9/11, didn't they?) just before an election with majority forecasts similar to those in Spain. Don't you think that exactly the same thing could have happened?

Talk about silly! Don't you remember all the debate? All the controversy about the invasion of Afghanistan and demands for the proof of Osama's guilt? There was real resistance from the rest of the world AND within the US to the invasion of Afghanistan. Do you really think it possible that the US could have invaded either of these countries without 9/11 as the catalyst??

No. The same thing would not have happened here. US citizens have never been under the thumb of Kings or a totalitarian government (Franco) as have the people of Spain. Our history is about throwing off the reins of tyrants, not bowing to their tyranny.

Here, I agree. The question remains, what are the suitable weapons in this war. Invading countries doesn't really seem to help. I guess, Al Quaida actually profited from the Iraq thing. They probably didn't get any WMD (because there apparently weren't any) but I don't want to know how many conventional explosives from Iraq got in the wrong hands before the coallition could secure them and how many skilled killers applied as new recruits for AQ.

Well for one thing the US was not alone in thinking that there were WMD's in Saddam's hands. We were most assuredly not wrong that he was supporting terrorism in the region, and mass-murdering his political opponents in the tens of thousands. Perhaps the invasion of Iraq had some negative consequences, but don't pretend it had no positive ones. The Shia majority in
Iraq would disagree with you.

The one thing that bothers me about the situation in Spain is the announcement of withdrawal from Iraq before the situation is stabilized. 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. What IMHO is needed right now is a major international envolvement in Iraq. The US government might not like it but they should swallow the pill and ask for international support through the UN asap.

Zee

The UN? Saddam laughed at 16 different resolutions over 11 years. When the UN entered Baghdad after the war they suffered a bombing and responded by running away. The UN responded in the past to Palestinian terrorism by inviting the head terrorist Arafat to "honor" them with a speech. Asking the UN to stand up to the determined insurgency in Iraq is like putting a quadruple amputee into the ring against Mike Tyson.

-z

 

[Cleopatra]

That's certainly true, but if the attack was seen as being made as a result of something like going to war in Iraq, which a good proportion of the population didn't want us to do... I dunno, it might be different. Could be wrong, of course; the British public are difficult enough to read at the best of times.

Although I am an outsider I strongly doubt it. I hope that people here don't think that British have the History they do with no reason and out of luck... Their devotion to a common cause when they accept a hit from outside is admirable.

It's not coincidental that in our days it's Shakespeare the majority knows and and not Lope de Vega...

And no. I am not saying this because I want The Marbles back!!

originally posted by Capel Dodger

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?.

You might be right although from the polls I have seen in Greece those factors( like the tendancy to abstinence) is measured as well. I didn't understand though. Do you think that the terrorist attack influenced the outcome or not?

 

[epepke]

Now, there's one silly generalization, if I ever saw one.

It's a generalization, but it isn't at all silly. As generalizations go, it's a pretty good one. That is and always has been part of the American national character, and it's perfectly good anthropology to point it out. Germany didn't understand it when they attacked the Lusitania; Japan didn't understand it when they attacked Peal Harbor; the USSR didn't understand it when they put missiles in Cuba, and Al Qaeda didn't understand it when they attacked the WTC.

 

[CapelDodger]

Hi Cleopatra:

Do you think that the terrorist attack influenced the outcome or not?

Oh, undoubtedly. And a most undesirable "message" it sends to those responsible and their potential supporters. It will also be the subject of much simplistic analysis across the Atlantic - some of which has already been displayed on this thread, in my opinion - which is the last thing we need right now.

 

[epepke]

It's not coincidental that in our days it's Shakespeare the majority knows and and not Lope de Vega...

Well, I've read all of Shakespeare's work and at least a couple dozen of Lope de Vega's plays in the original, and IMO Shakespeare was better, though de Vega had some pretty good ones, such as Fuenteovejuna.

On the other hand, Tirso de Molina's El Burlador de Sevilla, was the first appearance of the Don Juan character, but most people remember Moliere's Don [Dom] Juan better, and it's nowhere near as good. El Burlador de Sevilla has a Rashomon-like irony to it. Great stuff.

Don Giovanni has some good music but really doesn't add much to the story. Byron's poem is just crap.

However, another version of the myth, also Spanish, El estudianted de Salamanca, is also excellent, though different.

 

[hammegk]

Hi Cleopatra:

Oh, undoubtedly. And a most undesirable "message" it sends to those responsible and their potential supporters. It will also be the subject of much simplistic analysis across the Atlantic - some of which has already been displayed on this thread, in my opinion - which is the last thing we need right now.

What's the first thing we need right now? Praise those who act cowardly? Extol the wonders of socialism as it will now grow stronger roots on European soil?