The difference between Brits and Spaniards

[Looger]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jul 12 2005, 09:06 PM
We are getting a little off topic here.

The topic was about the difference between the English reaction to being bombed and the Spainish reaction to being bombed.

My point was that the Spainish did exactly what the bombers wanted. The English, indications are, not so much.

Carry on.

i hate to say though, as bias goes, after that bombing the FIRST thought i had was 'ETA'.

maybe since the timing was so quick the outgoing dude hedged his bets, as spain's terrorism history goes it was a smart play - odds are it would have been ETA.

though ETA tends to scale down its attacks, as in phone them in beforehand.

[Jake]

I'm suprised at the different reactions. The Spanish have had severe problems with Basque terrorists while the British have suffered numerous IRA attacks. Both groups were active during similar time periods. If terrorist groups attacked Canada and the US at the same time I would feel closer to the United States. Kind of like "we're in this together" (I had trouble wording those two sentences lol).

[CaptainCrunch]

I think the biggest difference is that the blitz of London is an institution over there and defines thier reaction to this attack. Historically England took a ton of pride in thier reaction, they basically got kicked in the teeth by Hitler, and turned around and chopped his head off.

The Spanish haven't really seen that kind of destruction to thier civilization in thier history.

I'm pretty sure that the guy that they picked in London is getting some pretty tough treatment right now, they'll be trying to find out who funded this, and who planned it.

[Looger]

i don't know aboot the 'destruction' factor - the spanish civil war was pretty rough, including entire towns razed by the luftwaffe to the ground, civilians machine-gunned as they fled on bridges.

i tend to think it's more directly cultural - britain standing up to the terrorists and standing up to hitler are not causes and effects of each other, they are both symptons.

hate to sound like 'anglophone civiliztion rules' but...

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't disagree with you Looger (for once ), the standing up to Hitler, and the IRA issues are a illustration of a nation, that almost more then any other except for the over rated france, had its civilization tenpered by steel, and defined by war.

Israel is very similar in a lot of ways, except far more aggressive from the onset, as oppossed to Britian which is slower to anger

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jul 13 2005, 02:18 AM
I don't disagree with you Looger (for once ), the standing up to Hitler, and the IRA issues are a illustration of a nation, that almost more then any other except for the over rated france, had its civilization tenpered by steel, and defined by war.

Israel is very similar in a lot of ways, except far more aggressive from the onset, as oppossed to Britian which is slower to anger

That theory wouldn't explain the U.S.'s reaction though. Like Britain, their civilization was formed through war. I think there is something like 37 years total out of their 229 year history, that they have not been in a war or military conflict of some kind, yet they are pretty quick to anger.

[Looger]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Jul 13 2005, 02:18 AM
Israel is very similar in a lot of ways, except far more aggressive from the onset, as oppossed to Britian which is slower to anger

<here we go>

i don't think israel as a nation as of 1948 was agressive at all.

i think the zionist conference in 1897 and the militants in palestine in the first half of the 20th were agressive, but the majority of 1948 israeli citizens were quite tired of war, understandably. most immigrants into palestine 1945-on comprised of ashkenazim jews fleeing from unspeakable horror.

guilt by association, unfortunately - israel's neighbours were the agressive ones in 1948, the zionists in palestine had been raising holy hell.

point of fact israel didn't even have an air force, they were assembling crated Me-109s and surplus this, surplus that - improvisation including dropping specifically shaped bottles on arab army formations that hit the ground with a loud bang, imitating bombs and scattering troops.

israel in 1956 was agressive, but they were not first.

[Looger]

Originally posted by FlamesAddiction@Jul 13 2005, 02:47 AM
That theory wouldn't explain the U.S.'s reaction though. Like Britain, their civilization was formed through war. I think there is something like 37 years total out of their 229 year history, that they have not been in a war or military conflict of some kind, yet they are pretty quick to anger.

i think it is the home soil aspect that roused america, it roused them at pearl harbour from isolationism into imperialism, never stopping after the war.

without that provocation, who knows.

would america have invaded iraq if not for the attack on its soil on september 11, 2001? not a chance.

would america have attacked nazi germany in africa, italy, and normandy if not for pealr harbour? i for one think only if britain had been invaded or if japan had attacked them elsewhere.

home turf means more to america than it does to other peoples, perhaps because there have been so few attacks there, this century.

[MarchHare]

would america have invaded iraq if not for the attack on its soil on september 11, 2001? not a chance.

Well, the American public might not have bought into it so willingly, but regime change in Iraq has been a goal of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle, etc. since at least 1998. These people have been looking for an excuse to topple Hussein's regime for years. September 11, 2001 gave them that excuse.

Take a look at this letter they wrote then-president Clinton:

http://www.newamericancentury.org/iraqclintonletter.htm

The only acceptable strategy is one that eliminates the possibility that Iraq will be able to use or threaten to use weapons of mass destruction. In the near term, this means a willingness to undertake military action as diplomacy is clearly failing. In the long term, it means removing Saddam Hussein and his regime from power. That now needs to become the aim of American foreign policy.

Emphasis mine.

[tjinaz]

So the UN resolution 1441 had nothing to do with the removal of Saddam. It was simply what Cheney and Wolf wanted. To say the US rushed to war is a farce. The conflict was 10 years in the making.

Do you have any Idea how many resolutions were passed showing Iraq in defiance of the argreement they signed after Gulf War I? None of them worth the paper they were written on. Saddam had long since proven to not negotiate in good faith. What are you supposed to do at that point?

It is not like they woke up one day and decided Saddam had to go. There was a 10 year pattern of defiance of the UN and the international agreements that Saddam had signed. At what point do you decide that the resolutions will have no effect unless backed by the strength of arms.

the Preamble to 1441

The Security Council,

Recalling all its previous relevant resolutions, in particular its resolutions 661 (1990) of 6 August 1990, 678 (1990) of 29 November 1990, 686 (1991) of 2 March 1991, 687 (1991) of 3 April 1991, 688 (1991) of 5 April 1991, 707 (1991) of 15 August 1991, 715 (1991) of 11 October 1991, 986 (1995) of 14 April 1995, and 1284 (1999) of 17 December 1999, and all the relevant statements of its President,

Recalling also its resolution 1382 (2001) of 29 November 2001 and its intention to implement it fully,

Recognizing the threat Iraq's noncompliance with Council resolutions and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and long-range missiles poses to international peace and security,

Recalling that its resolution 678 (1990) authorized Member States to use all necessary means to uphold and implement its resolution 660 (1990) of 2 August 1990 and all relevant resolutions subsequent to Resolution 660 (1990) and to restore international peace and security in the area,

[MarchHare]

Seeing as how the US went to war before the UN could finish the required inspections as outlined in 1441, you can't possibly use it as justification for the invasion now.

Also, I assume you're familiar with the Downing Street Memo which shows that America was dead-set on war long before they even went to the UN.

[Looger]

Originally posted by tjinaz@Jul 13 2005, 04:59 PM
So the UN resolution 1441 had nothing to do with the removal of Saddam. It was simply what Cheney and Wolf wanted. To say the US rushed to war is a farce. The conflict was 10 years in the making.

Do you have any Idea how many resolutions were passed showing Iraq in defiance of the argreement they signed after Gulf War I? None of them worth the paper they were written on. Saddam had long since proven to not negotiate in good faith. What are you supposed to do at that point?

you're kidding, right?

i hate to pull the chomsky trump card, but there is some selective conciousness aboot UN resolutions, i mean the US just vetoes ones it does not like.

http://www.walterlippmann.com/Chomsky-rhc-10-2003.html

However, since the mid 1960s, the US is far in the lead on vetoing resolutions and Britain is second.

No one else is even close and this can’t be discussed. They haven’t discussed the fact that the UN is paralyzed by the US refusal to obey international positions. There was all this fuss in the last year about Iraq only partially fulfilling UN resolutions. Right, maybe they should fulfill them all. If Iraq had the veto they wouldn’t have had to fail to fulfill UN resolutions. I mean the veto is the strongest and most extreme method of violating UN resolutions. So if you want to be serious about even wanting to discuss the topic, you bring up the veto. I don’t know one article in the entire US press in terms of opinion that brought up the point.

These are not trivial resolutions. The US has vetoed resolutions calling on all states to observe international law. It vetoed the Security Council resolution affirming the World Court judgment which condemned the US for pronounced international terrorism.

the US vetoes resolutions against israel, constantly.

UN resoultions, big freakin deal.

give me another excuse.

NEXT PLEASE