Reply
Sat 1 Jan, 2005 11:25 am
You know what happened on 11th March 2004. Almost two thousand people were killed in the most harmful terrorist attack on an European country. Three days later, the socialist party, which had opposed to the Irak War, won the elections. I am not going to talk about the illegitimate way they used to take over the government,but President Zapatero´s dissapointing behaviour . He promised to retire the troops he sent to Irak if the UN did not take over the control on that country. Well, the day after he was appointed president by the Parliament, he appeared on TV saying the the infantrymen detached in Irak will withdraw in two weeks.
President Bush considered this behaviour an act of betrayal- it is. Zapatero and his Foreign Affairs minister, Mr Moratinos, declared that they wanted Bush to lose the elections. Therefore, Mr Bush refuses to talk to Mr Zapatero. My question is Can the Us trust a country like Spain, whose President has declared that war against terrorism is not a priority until there were poverty in the underdeveloped countries? At first sight, the Spanish Government does not look like a trustworthy ally.
The Spanish electorate was overwhelmingly against the Iraq war from the beginning, and Zapatero was ahead in the polls before the terrorist attack. He would have won anyway.
Obviously, they have their own problems with terrorism, so it is no surprised that they would rather concentrate on them than on a questionably motived international war on unnamed, unseen, enemies with no way to know when or if victory is obtained.
Whether the current US government can trust the current Spanish government is something that probably depends on the scenario in question. But I would say, so far, it seems we can trust them to do what they say they will do.
The Socialist Party of Spain did not take over the government but was elected in a free and democrate election.
I don't know anything about that quotation you used re priority of war against terrorism - but I could think of dozens of more countries, who have others as well and still are good allies of the USA: e.g. the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Actually the socialist party won by majority in an
democratic election - nothing illegimitate, as you insinuated.
The majority of Spaniards were against the Iraq war
and the previous leader of Spain, Aznar, decided against
his people and sided with Bush. No leader should decide against his people, and Aznar got the answer
of his action on election day.
Zapatero acts in the best interest of his country and
all Spaniards. If this action is pro/con Bush plans, is
irrelevant as the leader of each country should have the
interest of its people at heart, not the interest of other
nations.
Is the Spanish government a trustworthy ally? Yes Spain
is! Just because they're not going to blindly follow another
nation into war - especially when the UN an EU spoke against it - does not subsequently result in an ally not to be trusted.
Even the American people are divided over this question: is the war in Iraq justified? So how can you fault another nation for not entering such a senseless disastrous war.
And, yes, the UK is ruled by Socialists as well.
And we should add Walter, that Blair acted not in
the best interested of his fellow countrymen, as the
majority of Britons were and are agains the war in Iraq.
Quote:I am not going to talk about the illegitimate way they used to take over the government,but President Zapatero´s dissapointing behaviour
please do, I, for one, would be very interested in your spin on this
You are certainly correct about that.
Which leads to the question: can the US trust an ally, whose leader isn't supported by it's citizens and even ... ehem ... disputed in his own party organisation?
Not taking into account thirty years of Basque terrorism would seem to be an error of omission.
Imagine the US had been fighting a terrorist Alabama-Georgia insurrection for thirty years...we might not be too gung-ho about providing troops for Spain's invasion of Morrocco.
Thomas Hayden wrote :
Quote:Almost two thousand people were killed in the most harmful terrorist attack on an European country
It was about two hundred. (too much, yet)
I just wonder how obviously
misinformed people can really initiate a debate on such basis!!!
You're comparing apples with peaches panzade.
The Basques never considered themselves Spaniards
and stride for indepencence.
Alabama is clinging to the US
Fun aside, you just cannot blackmail other nations into
joining your agendas, otherwise you'll withdraw your
troops in helping them with their legitimate causes.
The day before the elections, the Socialist Party organised hundreds of demonstrations in front of the Popular Party sees. At the same time, the newspapers and TV channels owned by Jesus de Polanco ( a strong supporter to the Socialist Party) launched a series of lies against the governement. For example, they told that Mr Aznar and the Internal Affairs ministe knew that Islamic trroristswere responsible for the slaughter just after it. They accused them of hiding information- an information which has not appeared yet-. Well, the main problem is that all these things are strictly forbidden by SPAnish Law.The way the Socialist Party used to be elected was illegal, thus the votation itself is illegal, and the Government can be considered everything but legitimate.
Thomas, I think you're underestimating the intelligence
of the spanish people. Aznar would have lost the election
despite.
Thomas Hayden
I mean, those, who have answered here so far, know surely a bit more than you about what was going on in Spain, because they informed themselves before posting here.
Certainly, we could have missed something.
Could you please give some reliable sozrces for your last post, re "the Socialist Party organised hundreds of demonstrations in front of the Popular Party sees" etc etc ?
A question aside:
in English, the noun "see" as used -according to Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 2002- as
1 a archaic : CATHEDRA b : a church containing a cathedra : CATHEDRAL c : a seat or center of the power or authority of a bishop : a diocesan center
2 a : the rank, office, power, or authority of a bishop <the see of Rome> b : the jurisdiction (as a diocese or province) of a bishop
Are you using here a special Spanish synononym I'm not aware of?
Thomas Hayden wrote:Well, the main problem is that all these things are strictly forbidden by SPAnish Law.The way the Socialist Party used to be elected was illegal, thus the votation itself is illegal, and the Government can be considered everything but legitimate.
I would like especially sources for this - and I'm sure, Spanish courts would like these sources as well.
maybe Thomas Hayden mean Holy S***, Walter.
You could be right, Francis: I think, the headquarters of the Bavarian conservatives for instance are there as well.
No, obviously we cannot trust Spain.
I say its time for another war with those clowns.
Where's that damned Teddy Roosevelt when ya need him?
Francis, if we have to attack those Spanish buggers, will you guys back our play this time?
We might start talkin' nice about you guys again . . .
Walter Hinteler wrote:And, yes, the UK is ruled by Socialists as well.
Well, some sort of weird, altered 21st century version of socialism, anyway. :wink:
Stumble It!
Tweet This
Bookmark on Delicious
Share on Facebook
Share on MySpace