P2P-Zone  

Go Back   P2P-Zone > Political Asylum
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Political Asylum Publicly Debate Politics, War, Media.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 13-03-04, 11:00 AM   #1
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default What they’re saying about America

Across a Great Divide
Peter Schneider

BERLIN, March 12 — The war in Iraq has made the Atlantic seem wider. But really it has had the effect of a magnifying glass, bringing older and more fundamental differences between Europe and the United States into focus.

These growing divisions — over war, peace, religion, sex, life and death — amount to a philosophical dispute about the common origins of European and American civilization. Both children of the Enlightenment, the United States and Europe clearly differ about the nature of this inheritance and about who is its better custodian.

Start with religion. The United States is experiencing a revival of the Christian faith in many areas of civic and political life, while in Europe the process of secularization continues unabated. Today the United States is the most religious-minded society of the Western democracies. In a 2003 Harris poll 79 percent of Americans said they believed in God, and more than a third said they attended a religious service once a month or more. Numerous polls have shown that these figures are much lower in Western Europe. In the United States a majority of respondents in recent years told pollsters that they believed in angels, while in Europe the issue was apparently considered so preposterous that no one even asked the question.

When American commentators warn about a new fundamentalism, they generally mention only the Islamic one. European intellectuals include two other kinds: the Jewish and Christian variants.

Terms that President Bush has used, like "crusade" and "axis of evil," and Manichaean exclusions like his observation that anyone who is not on our side is on the side of the terrorists, reveal the assumption of a religious mantle by a secular power, which in Europe has become unthinkable. Was it not, perhaps, this same sense of religious infallibility that seduced senior members of the Bush administration into leading their country into a war with Iraq on the basis of information that has turned out to be false?

Another reason for Europe's alienation from the United States is harder to define, but for want of a better term, I call it American narcissism.

When American troops in Iraq mistakenly shoot an Arab journalist or reduce half of a village to rubble in response to the explosion of a roadside bomb, there will inevitably be a backlash. Only a fool would maintain that an occupying power could afford many such mistakes, even if it is under constant threat of suicide attacks. The success of an occupation policy — however temporary it is meant to be — depends on the occupier's ability to convince the population, by means of symbolic and material gestures, that it is prepared to admit to mistakes.

In its use of the language of power the Bush administration has created the opposite impression, and not just in Iraq. The United States apparently cannot be wrong about anything, nor does it have to apologize to anybody. In many parts of the world people have come to believe, fairly or not, that Americans regard the life of their countrymen as infinitely more valuable than the lives of any other of the earth's inhabitants.

Of course, even in Europe only a pacifist minority denies the existence of necessary, unavoidable, justified wars. The interventions in Bosnia, Kosovo and Afghanistan were supported by many European nations, even if some took a long time to make up their minds. European soldiers took part in those wars and continue to play a part in the peacekeeping aftermath.

What arouses European suspicion, though, is the doctrine of just, preemptive wars President Bush has outlined. Anyone who claims to be waging a preventive war in the cause of justice is confusing either a particular or a partisan interest with the interests of humanity. A president who makes such a claim would be arrogating the right to be the ultimate arbiter of war and peace and to stand in judgment over the world. From there it is but a short step to dismissing a basic insight of the Enlightenment, namely that human judgment and decisions are fallible by their very nature. This fallibility cannot be annulled or ameliorated by any political, legal or religious authority. The same argument goes for the death penalty.

Animosity isn't the only feature of the trans-Atlantic relationship. Europe is rightly envious of America's multicultural society. There can be no doubt that the United States has produced the world's most varied and integrative culture, and it is no accident that it is the only one to have a worldwide appeal.

But the American multicultural model also generates an illusion. Since Americans really have come from all over the world, in the United States it is easy to believe that you can know and understand the world without ever leaving the country. Those who were born and brought up in America forget that these people "from all over the world" first had to become Americans — a condition that new immigrants generally accept with enthusiasm — before they could celebrate their cultural otherness.

This is why it is always an American version of otherness that is encountered in the United States. You will not necessarily learn anything about the culture and history of Vietnam by working alongside a Vietnamese doctor in the teaching hospital at Stanford. You can sit next to an Indian in the same dot.com company in Los Angeles for years without learning much about the manners and customs of India. And going to a French restaurant in Atlanta is no guarantee that you will be served French cuisine.

Foreign films account for less than 1 percent of the American film market, and the figures are similarly low for books and news from abroad.

The impressive integrative power of American society seems to generate a kind of obliviousness to the world, a multicultural unilateralism. The result is a paradox: a fantastically tolerant and flexible society that has absorbed the whole world, yet has difficulty comprehending the world beyond its borders.

These differences and irritations add up to a substantial disagreement on the joint origins of American and European civilization. Europeans think that Americans are on their way to betraying some of the elementary tenets of the Enlightenment, establishing a new principle in which they are "first among unequals."

And Washington accuses Europe of shirking its international responsibilities, and thus its own human rights inheritance.

After all, what is the point of international law if it prevents intervening in the affairs of a brutal regime to stay the hand of a tyrant? Who is the true advocate of human rights: the one who cites international law to justify standing by while genocide is being committed or the one who puts an end to the genocide, even if it means violating international law?

Unfortunately, we cannot expect the news media in the United States or Europe to present a nuanced view of this dispute. In 20 years of traveling back and forth between Germany and America I have become convinced that news broadcasts usually confirm their audiences' views: in Europe, about America, the "cowboy nation," and in the United States, about Europe, the "axis of weasels."

These disagreements will be influenced but cannot be resolved by the the American presidential election in November. The divisions are too deep, and Europe cannot meet the United States halfway on too many issues — the separation between church and state, the separation of powers, respect for international law, the abolition of the death penalty — without surrendering its version of its Enlightenment inheritance.

On other contentious issues the United States feels as strongly: the universality of human rights and the need to intervene — if the United Nations is unable to act — when there is genocide or ethnic cleansing, or when states are failing.

So are we standing on the threshold of a new understanding or a new historic divide, comparable to the evolutionary split that occurred when a group of pioneer hominids thousands of years ago turned their backs forever on their African homeland?

So far it has usually been the Americans who have had to remind the Europeans of these common origins, which the Europeans, in turn, have so often betrayed. Maybe this time it is up to the Europeans to remind the Americans of the promises of the Enlightenment that the United States seems to have forgotten.

Peter Schneider is a German novelist and essayist. This article was translated from the German by Victor Homola of The New York Times.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/13/arts/13DIFF.html
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-04, 11:58 AM   #2
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Quote:
The impressive integrative power of American society seems to generate a kind of obliviousness to the world, a multicultural unilateralism. The result is a paradox: a fantastically tolerant and flexible society that has absorbed the whole world, yet has difficulty comprehending the world beyond its borders.
Basically it's Narcissism with a "come and look in the mirror with me" attitude, which is the only reason we get away with it. I think it's kinda cool actually. You can see it on this very forum, where Aussies and Europeans focus on American politics almost exclusively. I would hope that a global meeting place like this would have more to offer an American like me seeking otherness, but it is strangely absent. I think in the end the trans-Atlantic conflict that Schneider highlights isn't one of fundamentals, but one of jealousy. In the future there will be a few new superpowers, China, the Arab world, and the continent of Europe, all seeking to clens themselves of American influence, wanting to have the same global influence on culture. The future war between these superpowers will not be fought by soldiers but by pop idols, fashion designers, movie producers, food chains, and advertising agencies.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 13-03-04, 12:34 PM   #3
miss_silver
Keebeck Canuck
 
miss_silver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Close to a border of LUNATICS
Posts: 1,771
Lightbulb

Great post Js

Quote:
And going to a French restaurant in Atlanta is no guarantee that you will be served French cuisine.
Very true. For good afordable French Cuisine, Chartier is the best! Of course, you'd need to go to Monmartre to enjoy it The Parisian Hard Rock Café is around the corner of this lovely restaurant
miss_silver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-04, 06:44 AM   #4
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Default

there doesn't seem to be much point in discussing anything but american politics here..

i like to try to keep up with it ...but its pretty easy here we get good morning america ,today,meet the press,pbs newshour..and a few of our localy made programs that often feature american politics...

because its american politics that seems to be the driving force in world politics..is my only excuse i guess..


talking aussie politics...nah..its a bit confusing for u yanks..cause over here
i am
a republican that hates liberals..

(i am in favour of a republic here ..and the liberal party is the right wing)
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-04, 11:19 AM   #5
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

Like Winston Churchill said, we're separated by a common language. Otherness is what I define as cultural irony, when you go from one culture to an other and nothing you discover is as you expect. Like driving in Mexico and stopping at a large red octangular sign that says ALTO instead of STOP. People are pretty much the same anywhere in the world you travel, but cultures are worlds appart. I think the more you understand the concept of otherness the more globe-centric your thoughts become, and Americans are notoriously bad at this.

Sometimes when I read your posts multi I get the feeling that you're meddling in affairs that you have no business with, but I stop myself becasue I know that American politics are a big part of world affairs. But World politics are completly different from American politics, and that is the area of greater interest to me. My observation is that American politics are so advanced that they've gone backwards to childishness, and I hate to see that kind of influence spread globally.

On a related note, one of the reasons that Star Wars Episode One sucked so much is because the Senate's politics perfectly mimicked America's. I find it hard to believe that a mish mash of diverse alien cultures a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away would resemble our own culture so much, and it makes George Lucas look very naive for his terible misunderstanding of history. The movie Gladiator, on the other hand, showed ancient Roman politics, and while the similarities are easy to find you can see some important differences as well. Roman culture is well documented, and the amount of change that has taken place over the last 1700 years is vast and striking.

So you can understand why I want to understand other cultures better. America is like a dumbed down version of the rest of the world, and as much as I lover her I'm starting to get bored talking about her. I think in order to understand any system you need a basis for comparison, and this forum is the only place I find it. I never talk about politics with my friends at work, and I hardly talk about it with my family, because all they really know is the American version and there's no room for critical thought. While it may be dificult for you and I to have these discussions when we use different vocabularies I think it's worth getting past the differences in language to get at the heart of these issues, it's very rewarding.

The point is that the internet is going to force us to think of the world as One whether we want to or not, and those who understand World politics from the begining will be the only competent leaders. This is my quest for otherness.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-04, 06:55 PM   #6
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mazer
Basically it's Narcissism with a "come and look in the mirror with me" attitude, which is the only reason we get away with it. I think it's kinda cool actually. You can see it on this very forum, where Aussies and Europeans focus on American politics almost exclusively. I would hope that a global meeting place like this would have more to offer an American like me seeking otherness, but it is strangely absent. I think in the end the trans-Atlantic conflict that Schneider highlights isn't one of fundamentals, but one of jealousy. In the future there will be a few new superpowers, China, the Arab world, and the continent of Europe, all seeking to clens themselves of American influence, wanting to have the same global influence on culture. The future war between these superpowers will not be fought by soldiers but by pop idols, fashion designers, movie producers, food chains, and advertising agencies.
agreed this country is very narcissistic, but i shudder to think of the values we are exporting (think Superbowl Halftime show) and i can certainly envision a day when other countries are of sufficient economic strength to maintain and perpute their own values via their own mass media. i think this century will be the Asian century, as the last century was the American century...easy to envision China, India and other Pacific Rim countries coming into their own. not so sure about Europe, because i think the leftist political and economic agendas that govern them also hamper their economies. i cannot foresee the Arab world as a superpower at all - think there are far too many entrenched cultural, religious, and economic barriers to opportunity for their citizens, women in particular.

Quote:
In its use of the language of power the Bush administration has created the opposite impression, and not just in Iraq. The United States apparently cannot be wrong about anything, nor does it have to apologize to anybody. In many parts of the world people have come to believe, fairly or not, that Americans regard the life of their countrymen as infinitely more valuable than the lives of any other of the earth's inhabitants.
this is an interesting point - European leaders need to think long and hard if they think they can ride American coat tails successfully. Look at today's elections in Spain: the ruling Popular party, probably Bush's staunchest European ally after Blair, got tossed out in a stunning upset...in most reports I've seen, voters cite Spain's involvement in Iraq, followed by their own 9/11 the other day, as the primary reason.

i think the Iraq is gonna be looked back upon as a turning point in American foreign policy influence...the high water mark, so to speak, where the wave finally broke and rolled back. we will still be be the biggest dog on the block for a long time to come, but American values are neither immortal nor infallible.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14-03-04, 11:54 PM   #7
scooobiedooobie
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 381
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by theknife
Look at today's elections in Spain: the ruling Popular party, probably Bush's staunchest European ally after Blair, got tossed out in a stunning upset...in most reports I've seen, voters cite Spain's involvement in Iraq, followed by their own 9/11 the other day, as the primary reason.
it's very sad..sad for the lives lost in the attack, and sad for the message this election will send to al-qaeda.

i know you don't see it this way knife...but it's much more than just a "stunning upset". it's a stunning set back on the world war on terror. the terrorists have succeeded in manipulating the people of spain into electing a government that has admitted it will not persue terrorism as strongly as the encumbent.

this will only invite further attacks on the rest of europe..and if kerry is elected, the same thing will happen to the u.s.
__________________
Proud member of the Republican Attack Squad!

Last edited by scooobiedooobie : 15-03-04 at 12:23 AM.
scooobiedooobie is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-04, 06:24 AM   #8
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
it's very sad..sad for the lives lost in the attack, and sad for the message this election will send to al-qaeda.

i know you don't see it this way knife...but it's much more than just a "stunning upset". it's a stunning set back on the world war on terror. the terrorists have succeeded in manipulating the people of spain into electing a government that has admitted it will not persue terrorism as strongly as the encumbent.

this will only invite further attacks on the rest of europe..and if kerry is elected, the same thing will happen to the u.s.

au contraire, my fine feathered friend: prior to the bombing, polls in Spain showed as high as 90% opposition to the Spain's involvement in Iraq. what the terrorists succeeding in doing was galvanizing a record turnout from a pissed -off Spanish electorate. the new government has, in fact, stated that terrorism is their number one priority:

Quote:
Rodriguez Zapatero started his victory speech by remembering those killed in the railway bombings. "At this moment I think of the lives that were broken by terror on Thursday," he said, then asked the crowd to join him in a minute of silence.

"My most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism," he said.
what they have also said is that they are are pulling out of Iraq on June 30th if the US has not handed Iraq back to the UN or the Iraqis. unlike some people, they are capable of grasping the distinction between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-04, 07:54 PM   #9
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by theknife
unlike some people, they are capable of grasping the distinction between the war on terrorism and the war in Iraq.
That’s right tk. This is no “stunning set back on the world war on terror.” If anything it was a clear warning to Western Administrations, a warning not to lie to the voters about Iraq.

Reporters in Spain covering this story provided a timeline. First of all, an overwhelming majority of Spanish citizens have been against the war in Iraq, some 90% as you’ve pointed out, because like most people they didn’t see a connection between the war and the real fight against terrorism, which they support. The lack of WMD’s was as big an issue there as it’s been here. But recently the war concerns moved to the background as the faltering economy took center stage. Even so, the election was too close call on Thursday, the day of the attack, and it could have gone either way. Even if they were thinking about the economy, just as many people were still against the war. Immediately after the attack the administration made a huge mistake and blamed Basque separatists, the ETA, and used that blame to shore up support for their party, since they’d been perceived as dishonest about Iraq yet strong on the ETA. Had the ETA actually been responsible for the train attacks or the attacks not occured at all the ruling party might’ve won the election, we’ll never know, they might’ve lost anyway - as this election really was that close and within the polls margins of error.

Things started changing Saturday afternoon when information from the Spanish equivalent of the CIA linked Al-Queda to the attacks, information the ruling party tried to suppress, but after arrests were made the party couldn’t suppress that link any longer. The people saw another lie, got fed up and by Saturday night spontaneously converged at the ruling party's headquarters, demonstrating against the administration chanting “Liars, Liars!” It was quite a scene.

In Spain this party sealed it’s fate because the people felt they were misled about Iraq, not because the people want to withdraw from the war on terror. Indeed, before the election the winning party pledged a tough fight against real terror, vowing not to get distracted by peripheral adventurism.

The connection between Al-Queda and Iraq and terror may be non-existent. Conversely it may exist but be tenuous, a minor offshoot of the real problem, and a dangerous waste of our lives and resources. A war that's good for the Iraqi people eventually perhaps, but something that isn’t solving our immediate security emergency. It may even be doing more harm than good. According to the reports from Spain, that’s the issue that decided the election.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-04, 08:31 PM   #10
Mazer
Earthbound misfit
 
Mazer's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Moses Lake, Washington
Posts: 2,563
Default

The war in Iraq may be taking resources from homeland secrurity, but so far there hasn't been a lapse in security big enough to allow an other terrorist attack. We've been able to handle both efforts without problems, probably because of the experinece we gained fighting in two theaters in WWII. Even where security is concerned you shouldn't put all your eggs into one basket. But I don't think we should get into any more combat until our forces are finished in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war on terror, I'm afraid, is one that cannot be fought by the military. What we should be doing is interrogating and investigating captured terrorists, learning their techniques, and planting spies throughout the Middle East to find Bin Laden et at. I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening already, but unfortunately those tactics can't be publicized to bolster public support. Even in the war on terror we need a few heroes, so maybe that's what the war in Iraq was all about.
Mazer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-04, 09:07 PM   #11
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mazer
The war in Iraq may be taking resources from homeland secrurity, but so far there hasn't been a lapse in security big enough to allow an other terrorist attack. We've been able to handle both efforts without problems, probably because of the experinece we gained fighting in two theaters in WWII. Even where security is concerned you shouldn't put all your eggs into one basket. But I don't think we should get into any more combat until our forces are finished in Afghanistan and Iraq.

The war on terror, I'm afraid, is one that cannot be fought by the military. What we should be doing is interrogating and investigating captured terrorists, learning their techniques, and planting spies throughout the Middle East to find Bin Laden et at. I wouldn't be surprised if it was happening already, but unfortunately those tactics can't be publicized to bolster public support. Even in the war on terror we need a few heroes, so maybe that's what the war in Iraq was all about.
several excellent points here: the situation in Afghanistan has never been properly stabilized - Taliban is resurgent, the government in Kabul is precarious, the warlords still run the rest of the country, and of course, we never got the bad guys. one has to wonder how different things might be if we had poured our miltary resources into there instead of Iraq.

the military is great for invading countries and fighting nations, but after Afghanistan and Iraq, then what? as Mazer describes, it's back to intelligence the old-fashioned way.

we will never "win" the war on terror, period. we will contain it, thwart it, guard against it, strike it where we see it, but there will never be a time when we can say we have all the bad guys, it's all over, everyone can relax now. the concept of the "war on terror" is ominously vague and completely open-ended, and it gives government a blank check to do just about whatever it wants under this banner.

i'd be a lot more supportive of my government on this issue if they were a lot more realistic about the long term strategy. invading Iraq to get at Al Qeda is no more practical than invading Ireland to get the IRA, or Tamil to vanquish the Tigers, or Peru to wipe out the Shining Path, or Spain to crush the ETA etc etc. in the end, conducting the "war" will come down to vigilance, intelligence, and security - and in spite of it all our military might, every now and then something's gonna get blown up and people will die. most every other nation in the world has come to terms with this and we will have to as well. as far as the war on terrorism goes, Iraq's just a dead end street in a bad neighborhood.
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15-03-04, 11:50 PM   #12
span
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1,260
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by theknife
every now and then something's gonna get blown up and people will die. most every other nation in the world has come to terms with this and we will have to as well.
thats a real pussified way to go through life, just accept the fact that they can kill us whenever they want! sounds fun! spineless attitudes like that is why terrorism has grown the way it has, just look at Spain...bomb civilians, get a more appeasing government! i'm sure Al-Queda will have that in their recruitment tapes.
span is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 01:38 AM   #13
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Mazer
The war in Iraq may be taking resources from homeland secrurity, but so far there hasn't been a lapse in security big enough to allow an other terrorist attack.
in spain there has been a attack, the government failed to protect the country, and the people blamed the failure on it's government getting needlessly and irresponsibly distracted by iraq. out goes the government.

in europe the outlook is a lot more focused. they know who's behind these attacks and until they've been brought to ground anything that takes away resources is a potentially lethal diversion.

friends tell me that france and italy, with muslim populations (and problems) the equal to spain’s or greater, are taking this latest attack deadly seriously, and they aren’t going to be looking to iraq for anything but the most superficial solutions.

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 02:03 AM   #14
legion
I took both pills.
 
legion's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Where 'strange' is a prerequisite.
Posts: 1,165
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by JackSpratts
in spain there has been a attack, the government failed to protect the country, and the people blamed the failure on it's government getting needlessly and irresponsibly distracted by iraq. out goes the government.

in europe the outlook is a lot more focused. they know who's behind these attacks and until they've been brought to ground anything that takes away resources is a potentially lethal diversion.

friends tell me that france and italy, with muslim populations (and problems) the equal to spain’s or greater, are taking this latest attack deadly seriously, and they aren’t going to be looking to iraq for anything but the most superficial solutions.

- js.
Alltho the spanish presence in Iraq played a major role in the way the people voted, i think the fact that the partido popular lied about that the eta had placed the bombs might have something to do with it too ...... untill late saturday night the party ruled by aznar insisted and even asked reporter to say it is eta while she knew that it might have been al qaeda.
__________________
Some people exist just to annoy me
legion is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 03:09 AM   #15
daddydirt
even the losers
 
daddydirt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Posts: 1,090
Default

http://www.globeandmail.com/servlet/...BNStory/Front/
Quote:
It is a matter of record that Osama bin Laden and other Islamists identified Spain as a priority target years before the Iraq war. Under Muslim law, no land conquered by Islam may legitimately come under non-Muslim rule. For the fanatics, Spain is still El Andalus, which must be reconquered for Islam by immigration and intimidation. So even if the bombs were placed by Islamists, the claim that Spain was only attacked because of Mr. Aznar's support for the Iraq war is utterly false.

The Spanish political community has failed the test of terrorism. it has bowed down to the violence of the few, allowing them to dictate their will to the millions. There are bound to be serious consequences, because openly demonstrated weakness always invites further attack.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2004Mar15.html
Quote:
Mr. Zapatero could not be expected to alter his view that the original decision to invade Iraq was wrong. But the reaction of Spain, and Europe, to this massive and shocking attack on its soil is crucial -- as is its response to the continuing challenge in Iraq. The two are inextricably linked: Whatever the prewar situation, al Qaeda's tactics now have made explicit the connection between the continuing fight in Iraq and the overall war on terrorism. Mr. Zapatero said his first priority would be to fight terrorism. Yet rather than declare that the terrorists would not achieve their stated aim in slaughtering 200 Spanish civilians, he reiterated his intention to pull out from Iraq in less equivocal terms than before the election.
daddydirt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 04:27 AM   #16
tambourine-man
BANG BANG BANG (repeat as necessary)
 
tambourine-man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Soon to be elsewhere
Posts: 1,327
Default

Oh dear. This is a sorry state of affairs.

Obscure War on Terror begins.
90% of the Spanish population say 'no' specifically to war on Iraq.
Aznar goes ahead anyway with the legality of war still under debate.
Bombs go off before the election.
Aznar predicted by every poll to win.
Aznar loses.
Opposition Leader Zaperto promises to pull out of Iraq.

Conclusions:
1. People's original opinion was not listened to.
2. Terrorism can harden original opinion.
3. Opinion does not necessarily determine election result.
4. Terrorism can influence election.
5. Attempting to extracate oneself is bowing to terrorism on the basis of fear, thus Democracy is undermined.
6. Therefor, agreeing with war is the only democratic option.
7. Thus, Democracy is single-minded?

Scary, scary stuff.
__________________
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction" Dick Cheney - August 26, 2002

"I did not authorise the leaking of the name of David Kelly. Nobody was authorised to name David Kelly. I believe we have acted properly throughout" Tony Blair - July 22, 2003
tambourine-man is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 04:33 AM   #17
multi
Thanks for being with arse
 
multi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: The other side of the world
Posts: 10,343
Big Laugh busisness statement

i watched the media coverage of american poitics since the mid 80's and we have had american shows on here since TV started..the JFK assasination interuped my kids shows oneday when i was young, i saw both shuttle crashes oklahoma bombing 911..ect all live as they happened..watching another countires politics is ofcourse is going to be very different to being there and living with it...i would just like to point out that we are pretty ingrained over here with alot of american culture..
i guess i have understood the mechanics of it a little better since being on the net and even on this forum and it is rather complex so i dont pretend to know everything........learning all the time.. anyway it really doesn't involve the evil multi meddling with it..too much muhahaha !
__________________

i beat the internet
- the end boss is hard
multi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 09:38 AM   #18
Sinner
--------------------
 
Sinner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,379
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by theknife

we will never "win" the war on terror, period.

invading Iraq to get at Al Qeda is no more practical than invading Ireland to get the IRA,


Time out.....you saying the IRA are the same as Al Qaeda ? I think you should re-read what ever facts you base this on or look for another source to get information.

Do a little search on....Collusion - a British State Policy


Also, what do you mean by "win"? If the USA can stop another 9/11 then I say they are winning. Sure the bad guys will always be out there,The US must stop their plans of terror in the USA and other Western targets. That is how we are winning.
__________________
The Enemy of My Enemy is My Friend

Last edited by Sinner : 16-03-04 at 09:58 AM.
Sinner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 09:52 AM   #19
JackSpratts
 
JackSpratts's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: New England
Posts: 10,013
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by toy boy
Alltho the spanish presence in Iraq played a major role in the way the people voted, i think the fact that the partido popular lied about that the eta had placed the bombs might have something to do with it too ...... untill late saturday night the party ruled by aznar insisted and even asked reporter to say it is eta while she knew that it might have been al qaeda.
that's what i've been hearing too. that the vote, too close to call on thursday, was decided by saturday night when it became obvious (to the voters) their government was lying to them.

PBS Newshour interview with Nicolas Checa of Kissinger and Associates.

"NICOLAS CHECA: Margaret, I really think what the key issue here is the handling or mishandling of public information in the 48 hours after the tragic events of last Thursday. I think it bears mentioning that the election was a statistical dead heat, according to public polls the morning of the tragedy on Thursday morning well within the margin of error, one or two points. And it was really not until Saturday evening, as Keith in your set-up shared with us, that the government decided to come forward with information as to the arrest of these five suspects linked to al-Qaida.

As an example, it took a personal call from Prime Minister Elect Zapatero to the interior minister, the Spanish homeland security secretary, informing him that the Socialist Party was aware of the arrest and that he was prepared to move forward with that information. It took that kind of information to get the current government to come forward and announce to the country at large that in fact it was not the ETA lead that would generate success down the road in the investigation, but rather the al-Qaida route.

MARGARET WARNER: So you're saying it more than just a public suspicion that they were withholding information, in fact the Zapatero campaign had to essentially pressure the government to release this information?

NICOLAS CHECA: Precisely. Yet there was a report earlier in the afternoon on Saturday coming out of Spanish intelligence agency saying that they were 99 percent confident that ETA was not responsible for the attacks and that all the avenues of the investigation pointed into al- Qaida.

In the early afternoon after the arrests had already been made, the director of the Spanish CIA denied those reports and it was after that that the campaign manager for the Zapatero campaign had to come forward and basically inform public opinion that there was information that was not being shared with the population."

Later on in the program Checa added the following:

"The government of Spain on both sides of the aisle has a lot of experience in dealing with terrorism and fighting terrorism. I think in the end after the dust settles, after we all understand that the election is over, I think we're likely to see a tremendous amount of European cooperation and indeed a Spanish cooperation on the global fight of terrorism.

Will it happen in the same terms and in the precise specific fronts that we have seen it so far with the previous government -- possibly not. But will the government of Spain be an ally for the global fight on terrorism -- no question about it."

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/inter...drid_3-15.html

it must be the easiest lesson in the world to forget, that lying to your constituents is a recipe for losing elections, since politicians never seem to remember it. nixon learned it the hard way - twice. although it didn't cost them elections both reagan and clinton will suffer historically from not heeding it, and bush, well so far he just doesn't get it at all.

when asked by dianne sawyer about the misinformation on the lead-up to war in iraq he looked at her and in all serious snapped, "what difference does it make?"

- js.
JackSpratts is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 16-03-04, 05:07 PM   #20
theknife
my name is Ranking Fullstop
 
theknife's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Promontorium Tremendum
Posts: 4,391
Default

Quote:
Originally posted by Sinner
Time out.....you saying the IRA are the same as Al Qaeda ? I think you should re-read what ever facts you base this on or look for another source to get information.

Do a little search on....Collusion - a British State Policy


Also, what do you mean by "win"? If the USA can stop another 9/11 then I say they are winning. Sure the bad guys will always be out there,The US must stop their plans of terror in the USA and other Western targets. That is how we are winning.
go reread my post - what i'm saying is that invading a country to get at a terrorist underground movement is an enourmous misplacement of resources, because a)you create enourmous good will for the terrorists, b) the terrorists simply resurface elsewhere and c) your resources are bogged down for years doing things like nation-building and peace keeping.

are we winning? how do you quantify that? in terms of net number of terrorists, i'd bet there are more now than there were two years ago. in terms of terrorists attacks, there have been more large scale attacks in the last year (e.g. Bali, Turkey, Madrid) than in previous three years, with the obvious exception of 9/11. saying we're winning because 9/11 hasn't happened again is fallacy because you can't prove a negative correlation.

two and 1/2 years into the "war on terror", the only pertinent question is this: "is the world a safer place than it was before 9/11?" if the answer is no, than it might be a good idea to re-examine the strategy, no?
theknife is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump






All times are GMT -6. The time now is 03:07 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© www.p2p-zone.com - Napsterites - 2000 - 2024 (Contact grm1@iinet.net.au for all admin enquiries)