To the people of Spain

by Amazing1914 117 Replies latest social current

  • Simon
    Simon

    Can you see the "war on terror" ever reaching a conclusion as it is currently being faught? Are there any prospects for resolution?

    I can see never ending conflict with ever increasing military budgets until the country goes bankrupt. And no security to show for it.

    I wonder ... the idea that some country should seize the middle east. What if it was Russia and or China? Would that be acceptable if it stopped terrorism? Sure, you'd have to pay a lot more for your gas (if you could get it at all) but wouldn't it be worth it?

  • Double Edge
    Double Edge
    IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISTS !!

    hmmmm, then what were those terrorists training camps doing in Iraq? Oh, right.... Iraqi Boy Scouts.

  • borgfree
    borgfree

    I will apologize Amazing1914 for using your thread for this, but, after reading it, I am so angry I just cannot avoid expressing my thoughts and feelings about some of the posts on this thread as well as similar threads over the past few years that I have been a member of this forum.

    I have not posted for a while because I was tired of the anti-American and especially anti-Christian sentiments prevalent on this forum. This will be my last post.

    I will give a few examples of the reason for my anger.

    Maybe if the nations simply stop jerking around with people's lives things will get better.

    Perhaps if someone seizes control of the USA and makes it behave, things will get better.

    Stop assuming that America is gods blessed land, you are his chosen people and you even have a clue what the answers are, never mind what your contribution to the problem is.

    Your "solution" of seizing control is exactly why we have the mess we have now.

    Disgusting!

    I did not want to use this thread to get the point over, as I have the utmost empathy for the Spanish people. However I agree with Simon, we must stop fuelling the hate.

    My message for the terrorists is, dont bomb us..... we are the victims here also, perhaps we can vote our government out without you having to kill us.

    But, you do not mind fueling the terrorists!

    I don't like your countries politics and, you know what? Neither do most people. That includes your allies. People do not have great confidence or trust in the US.

    Something to think about and quite an amazing thing your guy has achieved - in a couple of years he has pissed away all the sympathy of Sep 11 to the point where most people do not like or trust the US. Great job huh?!

    You seem to think you speak for the people of the world. I will reserve judgment as to whether or not Americans dislike our President?s politics until after the coming election.

    As for the sympathy of people who think like you, keep it!

    Thank you Simon. I can safely say that I totally agree with ya.

    I think you are an American; I am ashamed that you are.

    There are other examples on the rest of the thread but I will end here.

    I am proud to be a Christian!

    I am proud to be an American!

    I am proud to be a conservative!

    I am proud of our country?s past, present, and future!

    I am proud of the standards our country once held dear, and I think they will be restored!

    I am in the wrong place!

    Please remove as much of any membership I have from this forum, as it is possible to remove.

    Borgfree

  • ThiChi
    ThiChi

    """ IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH TERRORISTS !!"""

    Pure Rubbish.....

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/gunning/interviews/khodada.html

  • Pork Chop
    Pork Chop

    Thank you John Podhoretz and the New York Post.

    March 19, 2004 -- IN Iraq, as in the War on Terror, we're the good guys. In fact, rarely in the course of world history has the essential goodness of a nation been revealed so starkly as in America's conduct of the war against Saddam Hussein.

    The question is: Why is it so hard for so many Democrats, liberals and Europeans to accept it?

    What is it about the liberation of 25 million people and the removal of a barbaric tyrant - a tyrant who either directly or indirectly murdered at least 1 million of his own people and waged wars that killed another million in neighboring countries - they don't like?

    Why can't they celebrate the ouster of a monster who paid the families of Palestinian suicide bombers $25,000 a pop - in essence helping to recruit new mass murderers by making a public offer of an insurance policy to ease any concerns a bomber might have about leaving his loved ones in the lurch?

    And why do they struggle so fiercely to believe that the dictator who paid off those terrorists - and who housed others, among them the devil who pushed a wheelchair-bound American Jew off a boat into the Red Sea - had no interest in collaborating with other terrorist groups?

    Have they forgotten that the dictator's refusal to abide by the terms of the 1991 ceasefire that left him in power forced the international community to keep restrictive sanctions in place against his nation - sanctions that helped contribute to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children?

    Did they pay no attention when the humanitarian exception to those sanctions - the "Oil for Food" program - simply became a means for Saddam to enrich himself? Have they failed to read the news stories revealing how Saddam used "oil for food" to bribe hundreds of foreign politicians, businessmen and opinion leaders whose identities we are only now getting to know?

    There was nothing good about Saddam's regime. Nothing.

    And there was nothing bad about the liberation of Iraq. Nothing.

    It was carried out in three weeks' time with astonishing care taken to keep the war from bloodying the suffering Iraqi people. The problems that arose after the war - problems relating to water and electricity, primarily - were the result not of allied action but rather of sabotage by demented remnants of the regime.

    Indeed, most of the post-war problems were caused by saboteurs - including the looting that became the subject of such hysterical and overblown coverage by a mass media eager to find a bad-news story that might tarnish the brilliant success of the war effort.

    What is so striking about those who criticized it before the fact and have criticized ever since is their tone of moral outrage - not against Saddam, but against President Bush. He misled us, they say. He lied his way into war. He tricked everybody.

    This is arrant nonsense. But let us try a thought experiment. Assume that Bush deceived the nation and the world: What are the results of that deception?

    Yes, let's see. The nation of Libya has unilaterally disarmed itself as a direct result of the war. In addition, the world has now learned of a nuclear-proliferation network stretching from North Korea through Pakistan into Libya that somehow managed to escape the attention or knowledge of the United Nations agency we are supposed to think knows all about this matter.

    There are now more than 70 newspapers publishing freely in Iraq, and the country's three major religious-ethnic groups have agreed to an interim constitution that is the most radically advanced document ever to come out of the Arab-Muslim world. There are increasing signs of democratic unrest inside Iran and even in Syria.

    The world is an unambiguously better place today, March 19, 2004, than it was on March 19, 2003, when Saddam and his two disgusting sons were still the dominant figures in the Fertile Crescent. Indeed, it's a better place today than it was a month ago, because the Iraqi interim constitution was signed.

    There's something especially horrible about the way these facts are ignored and disregarded. More than 500 brave Americans have lost their lives in Iraq since the end of hostilities.

    Those who deny the justice of the American cause are essentially saying that these heroes died for nothing. And that may be the biggest outrage of all.

  • Pork Chop
    Pork Chop

    Thank you Charles Krauthammer (probably the brightest columnist at work today) and the Houston Chronicle.

    This has gone beyond appeasement

    By CHARLES KRAUTHAMMER

    When confronting an existential enemy -- an enemy that wants to terminate your very existence -- there are only two choices: appeasement or war.

    In the 1930s, Europe chose appeasement. Today Spain has done so again. Europe may follow.

    One can understand Europe's reaction in the 1930s. First, it could almost plausibly convince itself that Hitler could be accommodated. Perhaps he really was only seeking what he sometimes said he was -- the return of territory, the unification of the Germanic peoples, a place in the sun -- and not world conquest.

    Today there is no doubting the intentions of Arab-Islamic radicalism. It is not this grievance or that (U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia). It is not this territory or that (Palestine, Andalusia). The intention, endlessly repeated, is the establishment of a primitive, messianic caliphate -- redeeming Islam and dominating the world. They have seen the future: Taliban Afghanistan, writ large.

    Moreover, Europe in the 1930s had a second excuse. The devastation of World War I, staggering and fresh in memory (France and Germany lost a third of their young men of military age), had made another such war unthinkable. This does not excuse appeasement -- it cost millions more lives in World War II -- but provides context, and possibly humility. One has to ask oneself: Am I sure I would not have chosen the cowardly alternative?

    Nonetheless, it was still the cowardly alternative. And today, Spain has chosen it -- having suffered not Europe's 20 million dead of the First World War, but 200 dead in the Madrid bombing.

    The Socialist Party placed the blame for the attack not on the barbarians who detonated the bombs, but on the Spanish government that stood with the United States in its war against the barbarians. The Spanish electorate then voted into office the purveyors of precisely that perverse view.

    Spain will now withdraw from Iraq, sever its alliance with America and, as Prime Minister-elect Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero has promised, "restore magnificent relations with France and Germany."

    Nonetheless, Spain is just Spain. The really big prize is Europe. Which is why the most ominous development of the week was the post-Madrid pronouncements of Romano Prodi, the president of the European Commission.

    "Clearly, the conflict with the terrorists is not resolved with force alone." Sounds reasonable until you hear Prodi's amplification of the idea just two days earlier. "We know that international terrorism wants to spread fear," said Prodi. "Fear generates not so much justice, but rather vengeance, which chooses war to answer the need of security. ... We become prisoners of terror and of terrorists." In other words, making war on terror is unjust, fearful, mere vengeance and ultimately a victory for terrorism.

    If not war, then what? A centerpiece to Prodi's solution to terrorism: a new European constitution. I'm not making this up: "to defeat fear we only have democracy and politics. ... Today for us, politics means building Europe completely with its constitution and its institutions. ... "

    This is beyond appeasement. This is decadence: Terror rages and we tend our garden.

    Prodi is right that the war on terror is not resolved by force alone. How is it won apart from hunting down terrorists and destroying terrorist regimes? By reversing the Arab-Islamic world's tragic collapse into oppression, intolerance and destitution, in which popular grievances are cynically deflected by repressive regimes and clergy into the virulent anti-Americanism that exploded upon us on 9/11. Which means trying to give desperate and oppressed people a chance at the kind of freedom and prosperity that we helped construct post-World War II in Europe and East Asia.

    Where on this planet is this project most engaged? Iraq, where, day by day, the U.S.-led coalition is trying to build a new civil order characterized by pluralism, the rule of law, and constitutional restraints. Even a modicum of success in this enterprise would constitute a monumental strategic advance, a historic change in the very culture of the Middle East.

    Spain's response to this challenge? Abandon the effort.

    So when Zapatero and, more importantly, Prodi speak of nonmilitary means to "resolve" the "conflict with terrorists," they don't mean draining the swamp by gradually building free institutions. They mean buying off the terrorists, distancing themselves from America and seeking a separate peace.

    Sure, they will continue to track down individual al-Qaida terrorists. But that's no favor to anyone. They want to make sure there's not another Madrid, in case European appeasement is not quite thorough enough to satisfy the terrorists. But on the larger fight, the reordering of the Arab world that produced the terrorists, they choose surrender.

  • ScoobySnax
    ScoobySnax

    I'm just glad, that with the current state of the world, The UK can count on the USA as our friends and ally.

  • Pork Chop
    Pork Chop

    Hey, I love the UK, London is my favorite large city.

  • core
    core

    Terrorism is not an entity which can be bombed out of existence - it is blind hate in the hearts of some - who then pass this on - in many ways the WT are terrorists with a perfect training regime.

    Sadly history shows that todays "freedom fighter" is tomorrows government minister.

    From posts here it seems to me that the (some esp the columnists quoted) cannot accept the concept that people do not like the US therefore are enemies and insult Americas war dead - it is perfectly possible to not like America and be a democrat (in the wider sense of the word) Not liking the US is not itself right, it can be a throwback to inferiority complexes of empire builders or whatever - but we are free to feel that way - who is the biggest national threat to world peace & security - answers on a post(card) please

    A point which seems important to me is "who arms these terrorists" it is difficult to image a functioning weapon factory in Afghanistan - no the West sold the weapons/explosives to somebody and somehow it passed on to the terrorists - if the arms trade was properly regulated weapons could not pass on - similarly with money - terrorists are apparently not short and many have made the link between the drug trade & terrorism - feeble and weak attempts to control that (Opium trade again flourishes from Afghanistan - why?) are pathetic - real resolve could tackle the proble

    Spanish people have not voted to support terror - they voted out a government they had not fully backed anyway and took the opportunity to have a change - their right and freedom as a democratic state

  • core
    core
    ""Simon, I hope the UK never experiences anything along the lines of 9/11 or 3/11. Unfortunately, appeasers only make it more likely that these scumbag criminals will use their methods more and more often.""

    Good point!

    Hitler was a good example of why appeasement won?t work.

    Only just read this - UK has had sad experience of terror for 0ver 30 years - UK suffered destruction of major cities in WW2 in living memory - we need no lessons from the US about our duties - appeasement ? People in Spain went into a polling station and put a X against a different party - is that appeasement - they never supported the war in Iraq - which does not seem to have reduced any way the level of terrorism

    I was in Manchester the day the IRA ripped the heart out of the commercial centre of the City - I can tell you how it feels to search for family (we were shopping and had split up) in the confusion of the aftermath of a major bombing

    Terrorism (from the IRA against the UK) was never a big issue for the Americans - why have things changed ?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit