FAQ
Search
Members
Groups
Register
User Control Panel
Log in to check your private messages.
LoginI am curious as to how the Asturian's voted in the last election that ousted Jose Maria Aznar for Jose Louis Rodriguez Zapatero as Prime Minister. Was the only reason the Iraq war and Spain's participation, or was there more?
I was reading some items from the Socialist budget being presented to the Spanish parliament and noticed in the article the 2005 budget will include a 25% jump in spending on research and development to help increase Spain's productivity, currently the fourth largest in the EU, and spending increases of 7.3% for education, 33% for housing and 6.5% for pensions, while trying not to run up large budget deficits. I was reading this yesterday in the European section of the Wall Street Journal.
What is going on in Spain with the Socialist, Popular Party and other parties? What effect will all of this have on Spain's role in the EU? Employment?
Curious, I am.
Aznar versus Zapatero
Moderator: Moderators
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
Ken, this is difficult to summarize in a few lines, but the last 8 years of conservative governments brought severe cutbacks in social spending, i.e. hospital staffs were cut, no new diagnostic equipment was purchased, pensions and minimum wages were never raised to keep up with inflation, civil servants had their wages frozen, etc. Education budgets were cut, but exclusive private schools received more public funding than ever (mostly to keep the horses fed and the pools clean).
In addition, the "crown jewels" (State-owned companies who were very competitive and brought in great revenues) like Telefónica, Iberia, Endesa (power company), Argentaria (Postbank), Repsol (oil refineries)etc. were privatized in the most scandalous way. Telefónica's first president after it was privatized was Aznar's school buddy J.L. Villalonga, who made fortune of 24 Million Euros the very first year and when the shareholders started getting nervous he took off for Miami.
There have been nothing but scandals, but the "mass distortion media" controlled by the Government never reported anything, to the point where the Public Television news programs denied there had been a nation-wide strike of 20 June 2002. It was such an outrage and people were so much reminded of the Franco years, that from that moment the ground was laid for Aznar's fall.
Here's the memorandum published by workers and employees of Public Television (RTVE), many of whom were fired, denouncing the situation.
http://www.iespana.es/gaiaxxi/nm_perdida_verguenza.htm
As to the socialist government balancing the new budget, the Minister of Economy Pedro Solbes, who until now was in charge of the European Union's Economy and Finances, is a veteran in these affairs. He was also part of the task force team who negotiated Spain's entry into the EU. So, I have confidence that he will manage.
Terechu
In addition, the "crown jewels" (State-owned companies who were very competitive and brought in great revenues) like Telefónica, Iberia, Endesa (power company), Argentaria (Postbank), Repsol (oil refineries)etc. were privatized in the most scandalous way. Telefónica's first president after it was privatized was Aznar's school buddy J.L. Villalonga, who made fortune of 24 Million Euros the very first year and when the shareholders started getting nervous he took off for Miami.
There have been nothing but scandals, but the "mass distortion media" controlled by the Government never reported anything, to the point where the Public Television news programs denied there had been a nation-wide strike of 20 June 2002. It was such an outrage and people were so much reminded of the Franco years, that from that moment the ground was laid for Aznar's fall.
Here's the memorandum published by workers and employees of Public Television (RTVE), many of whom were fired, denouncing the situation.
http://www.iespana.es/gaiaxxi/nm_perdida_verguenza.htm
As to the socialist government balancing the new budget, the Minister of Economy Pedro Solbes, who until now was in charge of the European Union's Economy and Finances, is a veteran in these affairs. He was also part of the task force team who negotiated Spain's entry into the EU. So, I have confidence that he will manage.
Terechu
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
Terechu, good summary of events that led to the down fall of Aznar.
What I had read and heard in our news medias was Aznar and his party held large leads in the polls prior to the Madrid train bombing. After the bombing Spaniards were terrified of terrorist and Al Qaeda and chose Zapatero as he promised to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq with the thought that Spain could buy peace with Al Qaeda and other terrorist, especially those that might come from Africa. Basically, Zapatero was bargaining with the devil, and has purchased temporary relief from terrorism.
Obviously your posting provided a lot more economic and other reasons, such as fraud, for Aznar's and his party's ouster from power.
What I had read and heard in our news medias was Aznar and his party held large leads in the polls prior to the Madrid train bombing. After the bombing Spaniards were terrified of terrorist and Al Qaeda and chose Zapatero as he promised to pull Spanish troops out of Iraq with the thought that Spain could buy peace with Al Qaeda and other terrorist, especially those that might come from Africa. Basically, Zapatero was bargaining with the devil, and has purchased temporary relief from terrorism.
Obviously your posting provided a lot more economic and other reasons, such as fraud, for Aznar's and his party's ouster from power.
I shouldn't be amazed, but I find it frustrating that I didn't see or read any of this in the news here in the US. Did anyone else see these things in the US news?
--------------
Yo no debería estar asombrado, pero lo encuentro frustrando que ni vi ni leí ningún de esto en las noticias aquí en EU. ¿Vio alguien más estas cosas en las noticias en los EU?
--------------
Yo no debería estar asombrado, pero lo encuentro frustrando que ni vi ni leí ningún de esto en las noticias aquí en EU. ¿Vio alguien más estas cosas en las noticias en los EU?
-
Ken Menendez
- Posts: 108
- Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 4:53 pm
- Location: Overland Park, Kansas (formerly from Spelter, WV)
This example makes me think that there really is a problem with over-concentration of the media in a few large corporations. We need the variety to get a full picture.
To some degree, though we have to blame ourselves. If Americans were interested in international news, it would be in the newspapers and on TV. The news organizations tend to give us what we'll pay attention to. What does it say about us, that the news people figured we would be SO interested in Janet Jackson's breast for such a long period of time? We're the boobs. It's embarrassing.
---------------
Este ejemplo me hace pensar que realmente tenemos un problema con la sobreconcentración de los medios de comunicación en unas corporaciones grandes. Necesitamos la variedad para conseguir una imagen completa.
En alto grado, sin embargo, somos los culpables. Si los Americanos estuvieran interesados en noticias internacionales, estaría en los periódicos y por la TV. Las agencias de noticias tienden a darnos lo que nos atrae la atención. ¿Qué dice de nosotros que la gente de noticias calculó que estaríamos TAN interesados en el pecho de Jackson de Janet para un período de tiempo tan largo? Somos los bobos [un juego de palabras, porque "boob" significa tanto "pecho" como "bobo"]. Es embarazoso.
To some degree, though we have to blame ourselves. If Americans were interested in international news, it would be in the newspapers and on TV. The news organizations tend to give us what we'll pay attention to. What does it say about us, that the news people figured we would be SO interested in Janet Jackson's breast for such a long period of time? We're the boobs. It's embarrassing.
---------------
Este ejemplo me hace pensar que realmente tenemos un problema con la sobreconcentración de los medios de comunicación en unas corporaciones grandes. Necesitamos la variedad para conseguir una imagen completa.
En alto grado, sin embargo, somos los culpables. Si los Americanos estuvieran interesados en noticias internacionales, estaría en los periódicos y por la TV. Las agencias de noticias tienden a darnos lo que nos atrae la atención. ¿Qué dice de nosotros que la gente de noticias calculó que estaríamos TAN interesados en el pecho de Jackson de Janet para un período de tiempo tan largo? Somos los bobos [un juego de palabras, porque "boob" significa tanto "pecho" como "bobo"]. Es embarazoso.
As Terechu pointed out, there may well have been underlying reasons why Aznar lost the Spanish election, but the impression that I and most of my American friends got was that Spain "caved in" to terrorists. If so, it was the worst course that Spain could take. Weakness in the face of threats from terrorists only encourages them.
As for the U. S. presidential election next week, even though President Bush and his advisors have made serious mistakes in Iraq, there is no assurance that Kerry would have done any better. or that he has any better plans if elected.
As for the U. S. presidential election next week, even though President Bush and his advisors have made serious mistakes in Iraq, there is no assurance that Kerry would have done any better. or that he has any better plans if elected.
Dear all, I do not think that Zapatero 'bought peace' pulling the troops out of Irak. As far as I know, this was an electoral promise based on the principle that:
Esimados socios, no creo que Zapatero haya 'comprado paz' al sacar las tropas de Iraq. De acuerdo con mi conocimieneto, se trataba de una promesa electoral basada en el principio de :
- Spain would not support illegal wars (without a UN mandate or repelling a direct attack against us).
- Spanish troops cannot be engaged in combat abroad without a declaration of war being passed by the Parliament and sanctioned by the King.
- España no apoyaria guerras ilegales (sin un mandato de la ONU o como respuesta a un ataque directo contra nosotros mismos).
- Las tropas españolas no pueden estar envueltas en combate en el extranjero sin que el Parlamento apruebe una declaracion de guerra y que la firme el Rey.
There are thousands of Spanish troops currently defending peace under UN mandates in Haiti, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Afganisthan. There have been Spanish presence (Army, Navy, Air Force, Guardia Civil) in Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique and Liberia. Always with the agreement of both fighting sides (guerrilla and governments).
Hay miles de tropas españolas en estos momentos defendiendo la paz bajo mandato de la ONU en Haiti, Bosnia y Herzegovina y Afganistan. Ha habido presencia española (Ejercito de Tierra, Armada Real, Fuerza Aerea, Guardia Civil) en Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique y Liberia. Siempre con el beneplacito de ambos bandos contendientes (guerrila y gobierno).
I do not really think that USA and UK needed WMD, a 45 minutes claim, etc... It was right to get rid of a devil regime. I think that there was no planning, and there have been too many mistakes.
No creo que los Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido necesitasen de Armas de Destruccion Masiva o el argumento de los 45 minutos, etc.. Fue legitimo deshacerse de un regimen perverso. Creo que no hubo planteamiento previo, y que se han cometido demasiado errores.
May be if polititians had been honest from the very beginning and said 'Hey, we are going to get rid of this guy, and we will not stop until we bring democracy and human rights to Irak' things would have been different.
Es posible que si los politicos hubieran sido honestos desde el primer momento y hubieran dicho 'Bueno, vamos a deshacernos de este tipo, y no vamos a parar hasta que restrablezcamos la democracia y los derechos humanos en Iraq', las cosas hubieran sido diferente.
Esimados socios, no creo que Zapatero haya 'comprado paz' al sacar las tropas de Iraq. De acuerdo con mi conocimieneto, se trataba de una promesa electoral basada en el principio de :
- Spain would not support illegal wars (without a UN mandate or repelling a direct attack against us).
- Spanish troops cannot be engaged in combat abroad without a declaration of war being passed by the Parliament and sanctioned by the King.
- España no apoyaria guerras ilegales (sin un mandato de la ONU o como respuesta a un ataque directo contra nosotros mismos).
- Las tropas españolas no pueden estar envueltas en combate en el extranjero sin que el Parlamento apruebe una declaracion de guerra y que la firme el Rey.
There are thousands of Spanish troops currently defending peace under UN mandates in Haiti, Bosnia & Herzegovina and Afganisthan. There have been Spanish presence (Army, Navy, Air Force, Guardia Civil) in Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique and Liberia. Always with the agreement of both fighting sides (guerrilla and governments).
Hay miles de tropas españolas en estos momentos defendiendo la paz bajo mandato de la ONU en Haiti, Bosnia y Herzegovina y Afganistan. Ha habido presencia española (Ejercito de Tierra, Armada Real, Fuerza Aerea, Guardia Civil) en Colombia, El Salvador, Nicaragua, Angola, Mozambique y Liberia. Siempre con el beneplacito de ambos bandos contendientes (guerrila y gobierno).
I do not really think that USA and UK needed WMD, a 45 minutes claim, etc... It was right to get rid of a devil regime. I think that there was no planning, and there have been too many mistakes.
No creo que los Estados Unidos y el Reino Unido necesitasen de Armas de Destruccion Masiva o el argumento de los 45 minutos, etc.. Fue legitimo deshacerse de un regimen perverso. Creo que no hubo planteamiento previo, y que se han cometido demasiado errores.
May be if polititians had been honest from the very beginning and said 'Hey, we are going to get rid of this guy, and we will not stop until we bring democracy and human rights to Irak' things would have been different.
Es posible que si los politicos hubieran sido honestos desde el primer momento y hubieran dicho 'Bueno, vamos a deshacernos de este tipo, y no vamos a parar hasta que restrablezcamos la democracia y los derechos humanos en Iraq', las cosas hubieran sido diferente.
-
bartletrules
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: Gijón, Asturias
Respectfully, I do not agree with you
First of all, I'm glad to have found this forum and be able to discuss with you all. And now, let's go:Terechu wrote:
There have been nothing but scandals, but the "mass distortion media" controlled by the Government never reported anything
Terechu
In your post, it seems to have been nothing more than 8 years of corruption, under the Popular Party Administration.
Well, it's true that there were some -many, if you like it so- scandals (GESCARTERA, Telefonica...) involving relatives or friends of some politicians -and many of these have been absolved by Justice Courts-, but if we examine the whole 8 years of Aznar's leadership, I think the result is quite much positive than your opinion reflects.
You forgot to mention one key point: Though it's true that many budget cuts were made in almost every department of the Administration, the fact is Spain was committed to meet the economical requirements settled by the Maastricht Agreement, which was signed by former Socialist President Felipe González. We had to reduce unemployment, national debt and confront some other BIG challenges for our economy. And that, unfortunately, could be only accomplished by spending less money from all Agencies and Departments inside the Government.
Popular Party Government made a lot of mistakes, it's true. And some of those, were cause for Aznar's fall. Such as his decision to support President Bush and Prime Minister Blair in their invasion of Irak.
But, as you were earlier mentioning -quote- 'Mass Distortion Media', let me point out this very clearly: Aznar did not decided to take part in the Iraq invasion, he send troops with STRICTLY humanitarian objectives. And that was distorted by mass-media corporation called P.R.I.S.A., who rules the country's biggest radio network (SER), one of the most influential newspapers (El Pais), the only Satellite TV provider in the country (Canal Satélite Digital) among other small size mass media... PRISA generally supports Socialist Party, because it has some private interests with many of the Party leaders. And they reinforced the people's opinion that Popular Party has decided to take part in the war. IT WAS NOT TRUE. Spanish troops were only there to help iraqi civilians and both iraqi and coalition wounded troops with medicines, food...
PRISA manipulation -along with Aznar's own mistakes, of course- stablished the opportunity for Aznar's fall. And 3/11 terrorist atacks in Madrid occured in perfect time to affect people's mind, making us all think it was Aznar's government fault that islamic extremists put their eye on Madrid. Later, there has been proved that 3/11 bombings were being prepared at least one year prior to Iraq invasion. But it was 3/11, and the Election Day would be held on 3/14. Too few time to unveil any clue...
So, there's always both sides of the story, doesn't matter whether you are Socialist or Popular, Democrat or Republican... I'm not saying Aznar was a hero to the nation and Zapatero is absolutely evil. But, with PRISA media supporting the opposition, how could you say that people were blind about Aznar' scandals or mistakes? It simply is not possible anymore in our modern world.
E.G: Suppose Bush had lied to all US citizens in 9/11 terror attacks and FOX News had helped him to do so. Democrats have influence too in popular mass media (maybe Ted Turner's CNN?) to counter the misinformation courtain supported by FOX. And the same happens in Spain and the rest of Western European countries, or Canada, or Japan, or Australia...
You told first A, now I told you B. "Let the public judge"...
PS: BTW, my name is Iván. I always choose bartletrules as my nick, because I enjoy so much NBC's "The West Wing". And feel free to remark any fault about my (poor) English writing, of course.
Welcome, Iván!
Poor English? Ha. As I was reading, I wondered if you were American. Even when I saw a few minor things,
[You'll probably be interested, so I'll give an example:
"Aznar did not decided to take part in the Iraq invasion...." We'd probably say, "Aznar didn't decide to take part in the Iraq invasion...."]
I had to wonder how someone in Gijón would have learned English this well. I thought that you might be an American living in Asturias!
I think our media in the US may be a bit different. The "liberal media" seem to be running scared and sounding rather conservative these days.
The conservative media say there is a liberal tilt to the media, but it strikes me on average as being middle of the road or slightly conservative. I don't see much extremely leftist thinking in the media, especially today, but we do see extremely rightist thinking in the major media.
The complaint about the so-called "liberal media" is another case of intentionally using words that don't reflect reality (a Bush regime favorite).
----------------
¡Bienvenido, Iván!
¿Tu dominio de inglés es pobre? ¡Ja! Cuando leía tu mensaje, me pregunté si eres un americano. Incluso cuando vi unas cosas menores,
[Probablemente estarás interesado, entonces te daré un ejemplo:
"Aznar did not decided to take part in the Iraq invasion...." Probablemente diríamos, "Aznar didn't decide to take part in the Iraq invasion...."]
tuve que preguntarme como sería que alguien en Gijón habría aprendido el inglés tan bueno. ¡Pensé que podrías ser un americano que vive en Asturias!
Pienso que nuestros medios de comunicación en EE.UU. pueden ser un poco distintos. "Los medios de comunicación liberales" parecen correr asustado [¿se dice así?] y son haciendo sonidos bastante conservadores en estos días.
Los medios de comunicación conservadores dicen que hay una inclinación liberal a los medios de comunicación, pero me da la impressión que en general los medios de comunicación son por el medio del camino [no sé si traduce bien] o ligeramente conservadores. No veo mucho pensamiento sumamente izquierdista en los medios de comunicación, sobre todo hoy, pero es verdad que vemos el pensamiento sumamente derechista en los medios de comunicación principales.
La queja sobre los llamados "medios de comunicación liberales" es otro caso de intencionadamente usar las palabras que no reflejan la realidad (un favorito de régimen de Bush).
Poor English? Ha. As I was reading, I wondered if you were American. Even when I saw a few minor things,
[You'll probably be interested, so I'll give an example:
"Aznar did not decided to take part in the Iraq invasion...." We'd probably say, "Aznar didn't decide to take part in the Iraq invasion...."]
I had to wonder how someone in Gijón would have learned English this well. I thought that you might be an American living in Asturias!
I think our media in the US may be a bit different. The "liberal media" seem to be running scared and sounding rather conservative these days.
The conservative media say there is a liberal tilt to the media, but it strikes me on average as being middle of the road or slightly conservative. I don't see much extremely leftist thinking in the media, especially today, but we do see extremely rightist thinking in the major media.
The complaint about the so-called "liberal media" is another case of intentionally using words that don't reflect reality (a Bush regime favorite).
----------------
¡Bienvenido, Iván!
¿Tu dominio de inglés es pobre? ¡Ja! Cuando leía tu mensaje, me pregunté si eres un americano. Incluso cuando vi unas cosas menores,
[Probablemente estarás interesado, entonces te daré un ejemplo:
"Aznar did not decided to take part in the Iraq invasion...." Probablemente diríamos, "Aznar didn't decide to take part in the Iraq invasion...."]
tuve que preguntarme como sería que alguien en Gijón habría aprendido el inglés tan bueno. ¡Pensé que podrías ser un americano que vive en Asturias!
Pienso que nuestros medios de comunicación en EE.UU. pueden ser un poco distintos. "Los medios de comunicación liberales" parecen correr asustado [¿se dice así?] y son haciendo sonidos bastante conservadores en estos días.
Los medios de comunicación conservadores dicen que hay una inclinación liberal a los medios de comunicación, pero me da la impressión que en general los medios de comunicación son por el medio del camino [no sé si traduce bien] o ligeramente conservadores. No veo mucho pensamiento sumamente izquierdista en los medios de comunicación, sobre todo hoy, pero es verdad que vemos el pensamiento sumamente derechista en los medios de comunicación principales.
La queja sobre los llamados "medios de comunicación liberales" es otro caso de intencionadamente usar las palabras que no reflejan la realidad (un favorito de régimen de Bush).
Last edited by Art on Sun May 15, 2005 2:56 am, edited 1 time in total.
-
bartletrules
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: Gijón, Asturias
I absolutely agree with you on your last point, but there are some things in your first lines that could be 'completed' in some way:
And I'm terribly sorry to say so, but I'm pretty sure the answer is 'Yes'. The reason?
Zapatero promised to bring back our troops if there wasn't ANY U.N. Resolution supporting the occupation of Iraq by June, 30th. I think less than four days after assuming Presidency, he urged the Defense Minister to inmediately bring our troops back. Not even consulting the leaders of the coalition, making them able to take control of the former Spanish base with enough time to deploy troops and equipment...
That's not the way a Government should act. Doesn't matter the change of political 'colour' in the country. Transition should've be done calmly, working together with our allies (or the former Government allies, there's no difference).
And that sudden change, pulling troops out of Iraq in a few days, surely has been interpreted by the terrorists as a clear victory against Western democracy. I think it was dangerous, because it has definitely encouraged terrorists to kill any number of people they need to reach their mad objectives.
Oh, and finally THERE WAS a UN resolution prior to June, 30th.
So I think that definition of 'illegal war' -BTW, I've never heard about any 'legal' war- you give us is not so literally restrictive as you define it.
b) Spanish troops weren't engaged in combat, they were sent to Iraq in HUMANITARIAN missions. One thing is Aznar's total & personal support to Iraq's invasion, and other VERY different is to involve our army in that invasion. The second case didn't happen. Our army was helping people, not fighting anyone (except in case of self-defense, of course).
So, there was no need for any declaration passed by the Parliament (although the President himself and some Ministers answered questions to the Parliament in different times).
I agree with you that honesty is fundamental, but although intelligence reports later proved to be not accurate, doubtful or even false in some cases, the whole world believed that Saddam's Government had WMD avalaible. There are plenty of public speeches, reports, U.N. resolutions that gave credit to that consideration before the coalition started the invasion of Iraq.
I don't think so, either. At least, I prefer to NOT even believe that option to have been considered by our Government. But the question is not really if Zapatero bought peace from islamic extremists. The question is 'Will terrorist see the withdrawal as a victory over Spain?'.zancañeru wrote:Dear all, I do not think that Zapatero 'bought peace' pulling the troops out of Irak. As far as I know, this was an electoral promise based on the principle that:
And I'm terribly sorry to say so, but I'm pretty sure the answer is 'Yes'. The reason?
Zapatero promised to bring back our troops if there wasn't ANY U.N. Resolution supporting the occupation of Iraq by June, 30th. I think less than four days after assuming Presidency, he urged the Defense Minister to inmediately bring our troops back. Not even consulting the leaders of the coalition, making them able to take control of the former Spanish base with enough time to deploy troops and equipment...
That's not the way a Government should act. Doesn't matter the change of political 'colour' in the country. Transition should've be done calmly, working together with our allies (or the former Government allies, there's no difference).
And that sudden change, pulling troops out of Iraq in a few days, surely has been interpreted by the terrorists as a clear victory against Western democracy. I think it was dangerous, because it has definitely encouraged terrorists to kill any number of people they need to reach their mad objectives.
Oh, and finally THERE WAS a UN resolution prior to June, 30th.
a) According to the coalition POV, they thought that all of the past resolutions from the U.N. Security Council -not respected by Saddam Hussein's dictatorship- constitute UN authorization, allowing the intervention on Iraq. In addition to this, Spain took part in different bombing missions ordered by N.A.T.O. over Kosovo (under President Clinton Administration) without a specific mandate from U.N.- Spain would not support illegal wars (without a UN mandate or repelling a direct attack against us).
- Spanish troops cannot be engaged in combat abroad without a declaration of war being passed by the Parliament and sanctioned by the King.
So I think that definition of 'illegal war' -BTW, I've never heard about any 'legal' war- you give us is not so literally restrictive as you define it.
b) Spanish troops weren't engaged in combat, they were sent to Iraq in HUMANITARIAN missions. One thing is Aznar's total & personal support to Iraq's invasion, and other VERY different is to involve our army in that invasion. The second case didn't happen. Our army was helping people, not fighting anyone (except in case of self-defense, of course).
So, there was no need for any declaration passed by the Parliament (although the President himself and some Ministers answered questions to the Parliament in different times).
May be if polititians had been honest from the very beginning and said 'Hey, we are going to get rid of this guy, and we will not stop until we bring democracy and human rights to Irak' things would have been different.
I agree with you that honesty is fundamental, but although intelligence reports later proved to be not accurate, doubtful or even false in some cases, the whole world believed that Saddam's Government had WMD avalaible. There are plenty of public speeches, reports, U.N. resolutions that gave credit to that consideration before the coalition started the invasion of Iraq.
-
bartletrules
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Sat May 14, 2005 6:14 pm
- Location: Gijón, Asturias
WOW!!! Thanks!!! I know it's not true, but... it sounds good to me, ha ha!!!Art wrote:Welcome, Iván!
Poor English? Ha. As I was reading, I wondered if you were American. Even when I saw a few minor things,
[You'll probably be interested, so I'll give an example:
"Aznar did not decided to take part in the Iraq invasion...." We'd probably say, "Aznar didn't decide to take part in the Iraq invasion...."]
I had to wonder how someone in Gijón would have learned English this well. I thought that you might be an American living in Asturias!
I do like your great country very much, and I'm interested on all things that happen there, specially on politics, as Washington decisions affects us all. So I'm very happy to have found your great web, specially being able to contact Americans with Asturian ancestors...
Well, I suppose it depends on the 'place' you're looking from. Terechu just pointed in another thread that she thought during Aznar Government, most of the media were pro-Aznar while I pointed out that one of the most powerful communication corporation in our country is clearly aligned with Socialist point of view.I think our media in the US may be a bit different. The "liberal media" seem to be running scared and sounding rather conservative these days.
The conservative media say there is a liberal tilt to the media, but it strikes me on average as being middle of the road or slightly conservative. I don't see much extremely leftist thinking in the media, especially today, but we do see extremely rightist thinking in the major media.
The complaint about the so-called "liberal media" is another case of intentionally using words that don't reflect reality (a Bush regime favorite).
I consider myself as a moderate conservative, but I think I'm really open to admit conservative mistakes and remark liberal successes. I think Clinton was, despite possibly being weak on defense or Intelligence, as Republicans often suggest, a great president for the US -as Kerry, Gore, Dukakis OR Howard Dean (this is the only man I think could have defeated Bush in 04' elections) could've been-.
But the key point is Democrats across the US are unfocused, they have lost the contact with the average American citizen. I'm not talking about the Americans from big cities. New Yorkers, people from LA, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco... have more connection to the rest of the world than citizens from New Mexico or Arkansas, for example. But citizens from New Mexico or Arkansas must be kept in mind, if democrats want to reach the WH again, or retake some seats in the House or the Senate. Maybe California has 25 electoral votes, and Oklahoma only 6, but they must fight for those 6 too, and work the harder the better to gain those votes.
I think democrat leaders have distanced from those Americans who are more concentrated in his own country, his daily life than the world news. Clinton won the Office because he managed to connect with some of those Americans, apart from the others in California, New York... That kind of connection must be fundamental for democrats, as it is for republicans. Texas was 20 years ago a democrat state, now it seems to be republican from here to eternity. This is the definite proof. This is your problem (well, I assume you are a democrat, at least i'm pretty sure you don't support Bush, do you?
)A large part of our problem here in the US is that there is extreme polarization. People aren't thinking rationally about the issues. Of course, all of us humans are always much more emotional than we'd like to admit, but this is a particularly non-rational period in our history.
I suspect that most Democrats were caught sleeping and didn't realize that the religious right has been working exceptionally hard--for 20 or 30 years now--to build a constituency for their agenda. Howard Dean is now leading the Democratic party and seems to be doing a good job of addressing the issues.
The right didn't used to be religious in the way it is now. It used to be "conservative." Now it's more reactionary and only socially conservative, certainly not fiscally conservative. I'm much more conservative fiscally than our congressional Republicans; I believe in paying as you go, not mortgaging our futures the way it's being done today.
With the marked polarization, it's hard to have honest discussions of our pressing issues, so we're seeing a lot of demagoguery [when a politician appeals to emotion and prejudice] rather than meaningful progress.
But that may be the intent. Since they've built their constituency by means of demagoguery, it shouldn't surprise me now that they continue in that mode. It appears that one of the main goals of the religious right is to institute a Biblical government and legislate their idea of morality, which would add another layer of demagoguery.
------------------
Una gran parte de nuestro problema aquí en EE.UU. es que hay una polarización intensísima. No piensamos racionalmente en las temas. Desde luego, somos todos siempre mucho más emocionales que gustaríamos admitir, pero es una epoca particularmente non-racional de nuestra historia.
Sospecho que la mayor parte de los Demócratas fueron pillados durmiendo y no comprendieron que la derecha religiosa ha estado trabajando excepcionalmente con fuerza--ya durante 20 o 30 años--para construir un distrito electoral [electores potenciales] para su orden del día. Howard Dean ahora conduce el partido demócrata y parece que lo hace bien y que trata de las cuestiones importantes.
Antes la derecha no era religiosa del modo que es ahora. Era "conservadora". Ahora es más reaccionaria y es conservadora solamente en temas sociales, seguramente no es fiscalmente conservadora. Soy mucho más conservador fiscalmente que nuestros Republicanos del Congreso; creo que se debe pagar como se va, no hipotecando nuestro futuro de la manera que están haciendo hoy.
Con la polarización marcada, es difícil de tener las discusiones honestas de nuestras cuestiones apremiantes, por eso vemos mucha demagogia [cuando un político apela a la emoción y el prejuicio] más bien que el progreso significativo.
Pero puede ser la intención. Ya que han construido su distrito electoral mediante la demagogia, no debería sorprenderme ahora que siguen en aquel modo. Aparece que uno de los objetivos principales de la derecha religiosa es instituir un gobierno Bíblico y legislar su idea de moralidad, lo que añadiría otra capa de demagogia.
I suspect that most Democrats were caught sleeping and didn't realize that the religious right has been working exceptionally hard--for 20 or 30 years now--to build a constituency for their agenda. Howard Dean is now leading the Democratic party and seems to be doing a good job of addressing the issues.
The right didn't used to be religious in the way it is now. It used to be "conservative." Now it's more reactionary and only socially conservative, certainly not fiscally conservative. I'm much more conservative fiscally than our congressional Republicans; I believe in paying as you go, not mortgaging our futures the way it's being done today.
With the marked polarization, it's hard to have honest discussions of our pressing issues, so we're seeing a lot of demagoguery [when a politician appeals to emotion and prejudice] rather than meaningful progress.
But that may be the intent. Since they've built their constituency by means of demagoguery, it shouldn't surprise me now that they continue in that mode. It appears that one of the main goals of the religious right is to institute a Biblical government and legislate their idea of morality, which would add another layer of demagoguery.
------------------
Una gran parte de nuestro problema aquí en EE.UU. es que hay una polarización intensísima. No piensamos racionalmente en las temas. Desde luego, somos todos siempre mucho más emocionales que gustaríamos admitir, pero es una epoca particularmente non-racional de nuestra historia.
Sospecho que la mayor parte de los Demócratas fueron pillados durmiendo y no comprendieron que la derecha religiosa ha estado trabajando excepcionalmente con fuerza--ya durante 20 o 30 años--para construir un distrito electoral [electores potenciales] para su orden del día. Howard Dean ahora conduce el partido demócrata y parece que lo hace bien y que trata de las cuestiones importantes.
Antes la derecha no era religiosa del modo que es ahora. Era "conservadora". Ahora es más reaccionaria y es conservadora solamente en temas sociales, seguramente no es fiscalmente conservadora. Soy mucho más conservador fiscalmente que nuestros Republicanos del Congreso; creo que se debe pagar como se va, no hipotecando nuestro futuro de la manera que están haciendo hoy.
Con la polarización marcada, es difícil de tener las discusiones honestas de nuestras cuestiones apremiantes, por eso vemos mucha demagogia [cuando un político apela a la emoción y el prejuicio] más bien que el progreso significativo.
Pero puede ser la intención. Ya que han construido su distrito electoral mediante la demagogia, no debería sorprenderme ahora que siguen en aquel modo. Aparece que uno de los objetivos principales de la derecha religiosa es instituir un gobierno Bíblico y legislar su idea de moralidad, lo que añadiría otra capa de demagogia.