Asturian-American Migration Forum

A while back, I tried to start this discussion, and quickly learned a little about how not to begin it. So, at the encouragement of several members, I'll try again.

Discussing the war in Iraq is controversial in the US. Some believe that to criticize the government (either their reasons for going to war or their prosecution of it) is equivalent to a lack of support for the people serving in our armed services. I can understand how questioning the wisdom of this war might be demoralizing to those who have to fight it, and in this way endanger their lives.

One huge difference between this war and the Vietnam War is that I don't hear anyone in America criticizing the troops, even in regard to the Abu Ghraib prison torture. This is astounding, given that during the Vietnam War the troops were vilified for participating in the war and many who were against the Vietnam War treated them with disrespect. Perhaps we've learned that it's possible to support our soldiers and criticize the government at the same time. And perhaps we've become skeptical when anyone tries to blame the "little guys" (the soldiers) for the actions of the "big guys" (our leaders in the government).

If we value the lives and welfare of our soldiers (and that of the Iraqis), it's our duty to think critically (in the sense of using our higher reasoning abilities) about why they are fighting and whether their sacrifice is worthwhile.

Here's a little story. Right after the Spanish elections, in which the conservative government lost, I was in the post office here. The mail clerk, a young man in his 20s, saw that I was mailing something to Spain and said something like, "It's a real shame that the Spanish defeated their government. The terrorists won!"

I live in a conservative area, so his views are probably fairly normal. Still, in the US we don't usually have political discussions in the post office, so I was surprised.

With so much negative news coming out of Iraq and Washington, DC, the tide seems to be shifting in the US, too, so that common people are questioning the government. I think it's safe to say that a majority of Americans are very concerned about the situation there, although we're still very divided about whether going to war was a good thing.

I would be interested in hearing how Spaniards are thinking about the war now that your troops have left Iraq.

-------------

El rato atrás, traté de comenzar esta discusión, y rápidamente aprendí un poco sobre como no comenzarlo. Tan, en el estímulo de varios miembros, intentaré otra vez.

La discusión de la guerra en Irak es polémica en EU. Unos creen que criticar el gobierno (sus motivos para ir a la guerra o su procesamiento de ello) es el equivalente a una carencia de apoyo a la gente que sirve en nuestras fuerzas armadas. Entiendo como el cuestionamiento de de la sabiduría de esta guerra podría desmoralizar a los que tienen que lucharlo, y de este modo podría poner en peligro sus vidas.

Una diferencia enorme entre esta guerra y la Guerra de Vietnam es que no oigo a nadie en América criticando las tropas, aún con respecto al la tortura en la prisión de Abu Ghraib. Es asombroso, dado que durante la Guerra de Vietnam las tropas fueron vilipendiadas para participar en la guerra y muchos que estaban contra la Guerra de Vietnam los trataron a los soldados con una falta de respeto. Quizás hayamos aprendido que es posible apoyar a nuestros soldados y criticar el gobierno al mismo tiempo. Y quizás nos hayamos hecho escépticos cuando alguien trata de culpar a "los tipos pequeños" (los soldados) para las acciones de los grandes (nuestros líderes en el gobierno).

Si valoramos las vidas y el bienestar de nuestros soldados (y de los iraquíes), tenemos un obligación de pensar críticamente (en el sentido de la utilización de nuestras capacidades más altas de razón) sobre por qué ellos luchan y si su sacrificio vale la pena.

Ahora cuento una pequeña historia. Poco después de las elecciones españolas, en las cuales el gobierno conservador perdió, estaba yo en el correos aquí. El empleado de correo, un joven en sus años 20, vio que enviaba algo a España y me dije algo como, "Es una verdadera vergüenza que los españoles derrotó su gobierno. ¡Los terroristas ganaron!"

Vivo en una zona conservadora, entonces sus opiniones son probablemente bastante normales. De todos modos, en EU por lo general no tenemos discusiones políticas en el correos, entonces estuve sorprendido.

Con tantos noticias negativas que salen de Irak y Washington DC, parece que la marea cambia en EU, también, de modo que la gente común cuestionar el gobierno. Pienso estoy seguro en decir que una mayoría de Americanos muy está preocupada sobre la situación allí en Irak, aunque todavía seamos muy divididos.

Me interesa saber como pensan los españoles sobre la guerra ya que sus tropas han dejado Irak.

After the new Spanish government announced the withdrawal from Iraq, I read the Washington Post and was shocked to see that not one single article told the truth: namely that the Socialist Party's main campaign promise was the troop withdrawal and that all they did was keep their word to their voters. Period.
US media called it everything from "apeacement" (as if that were a sin! Jeez!) to "surrender", as if we would chicken out or something, knowing full and well it was a lie. It was very offensive to those of us who voted for peace, because we had no business in Iraq in the first place. Iraq was not our enemy. The Madrid bombings were the result of our absurd involvement.
The USA are an empire the likes of which never existed before, it dominates the world in every aspect, culturally, technologically and financially. Why then wage a war on a small country like Irak? In my opinion it's George W. Bush's private war financed with public money, and if Americans allow it, that's none of Spain's business.

----------------------------

Después de que el nuevo gobierno español anunciase la retirada de tropas de Irak, leí el Washington Post y me quedé alucinada al ver que ni un solo artículo contaba la verdad, es decir, que la principal promesa electoral del Partido Socialista era la retirada de tropas y que simplemente cumplieron la palabra dada a sus votantes. Punto.
Los medios de comunicación americanos lo llamaron de todo, desde "pacificación" (cómo si fuera pecado!) hasta "rendición", como si fuéramos unos cobardes o algo por el estilo, sabiendo perfectamente que era mentira. Fué extremadamente ofensivo para los que votamos por la paz, porque, para empezar, no se nos había perdido nada en Irak. Irak no era enemigo nuestro. Los atentados de Madrid fueron el resultado de nuestra absurda implicación.
Los Estados Unidos son un imperio sin parangón en la historia, domina el mundo en todos los aspectos, el cultural, el tecnológico y el financiero. Por qué entonces declarle la guerra a un país pequeño como Irak? En mi opinión es una guerra privada de George W. Bush, financiada con dinero público y si los americanos lo permiten, eso no es asunto de España.

Saludos
Terechu

yo voy a dar mi opinión respecto a esta guerra,a mí me parece qué el partido socialista propuso en su programa electoral la traída de las tropas como una medida para ganar las elecciones ,porqué me parace qué sí no fuera así yo creo qué el triunfo lo tenían difícil por no decir imposible ,no toda la gente está a favor de las tropas ni por supuesto toda la gente está en contra yo no estoy de acuerdo con la guerra, pero sí un país amigo te pide ayuda creo qué hay qué ayudarlo,lo qué hicieron con las torres gemelas en AMERICA fué un crimen con más de 2000 muertos, lo qué sí sé es qué America es el amo del mundo y los Americanos (junto con otras tropas) los qué salvaron a Europa de la invasión Alemana ,tengo qué decir qué mi prima me mandó un maillot con la bandera Americana ypone en letras grandes USA, cuando me lo pongo a muchos de mis amigos no les gusta( por la bandera ) pero no me importa, es un maillot precioso y por supuesto sólo lo tengo yo.saludos

-----------------------------------------------------------------
Translated by Terechu

I'm going to express my opinion about this war. I think the Socialist Party proposed the withdrawal of troops in their campaign program in order to win the elections, because otherwise I believe it would have been difficult or even impossible for them to win. Not everybody is in favour of deploying troops, nor is everybody against it. I am against war, but if an allied country asks for assistance I believe we have to give it. What they did with the Twin Towers in America was a crime with over 2000 dead. What I do know is that Americans rule the world and they, together with other troops, saved Europe from the German invasion. I must say that my cousin sent me a jersey with the American flag and USA written in large letters. When I wear it many of my friends don't like it (because of the flag), but I don't care, it's a wonderful jersey and of course I'm the only one who has it.
Regards

Es un tema bastante delicado, con muchas implicaciones politicas, economicas y geo-estrategicas.
Y donde se dicen y se dijieron muchas mentiras, si todo no fue mentira.

ANTECEDENTES

1)Para empecer, aunque quizas no vos guste (digo a nuestros amigos americanos) hay un dicho aquí que dice cria cuervos y te comeran los ojos. Pues bueno, estos cuervos, Sadam husein, Al-qaeda, etc... los creo USA. Quiero recordar que el 95% (por no decir el 100%) de las organizaciones terroristas de "ideología" fundamentalisma islamista nacieron al calor de "subvenciones" del gobierno USA para combatir la URSS en la guerra de Afghanistan. Si os fijais, la mayoría de dirigentes y personas importantes en todo tipo de organicaziones de estas son veteranos de la guerra de Afghanistan. Tambien hay que decir que Sadam fue un monstruo creado por USA, principalmente, cuando se le apoyo en la guerra Iran-Iraq, venganza americana al derrocamiento del Sha, favorecedor de los intereses USA, y de la revolución islamica. Occidente, Francia y Alemania se forraron vendiendo armas a ambas partes. EEUU tambien vendio armas a Iran, bajo cuerda, ver el Irangate. Curiosamente en esta guerra, USA y URSS, apoyaron al mismo pais, Iraq.
2)Despues del atentado de las torres gemelas, que favorecio a Bush, dicho sea de paso, pues el gobierno americano se vio obligado a actuar rapidamente (por no decir vengarse) y decidieron la invasion de Afghanistan y el derrocamiento del regimen talib. Lo que se dice menos, es que volvieron a coger el poder los anteriores señores de la guerra, y de democracia, mas bien poco. Este pais poco avanzo.
3)Según he leido, pues parece ser que a Sadam le prometieron cuando la guerra Iran-Iraq recuperar una provincia desgajada de mesopotamia cuando el reparto del imperio otomano, llamada Kuwait. Sea eso verdad o no, todos sabemos lo que paso. La primera guerra del golfo se hizo, con miles de muertos, muchos de ellos civiles, pero se indulto a Sadam, no se exactamente por que razón, si por miedo a un posible caos o porque a la administración americana le interesaba mas un Sadam debilitado.
Esto, realmente reforzo a Sadam dentro de su propio pais, la población quedo mucho mas dependiente de este dictador. Las anteriores matanzas de Kurdos fue hecha con el visto bueno de occidente, quien le proporciono el armamento y la tecnología (tambien los productos quimicos). Despues de esta guerra, Sadam se vengo sobre los shiitas, que durante la guerra, se devantaron apoyados por USA, que luego los abandono a su suerte (aunque Bush se pregunte todavía por la razon que los shiies no aclamaron a sus tropas). Se estima que el embargo posterior causo la muerte de medio millon de iraquies. (A ver cuando USA aprende que los embargos no favorecen devantamientos de la población civil, si no lo contrario). El programa petroleo por alimentos, solo sirvio para aumentar la dependencia de la población del gobierno.

2ª guerra del Golfo

Primero decir : Si bien no habia documentos que acreditasen de que el gobierno de Sadam se había desecho de su armamento químico, tambien es cierto que los inspectores no habían descubierto evidencia de que Sadam tuviera todavia stock de esas armas o que tuviera algun programa en curso.
No existe ninguna relación del gobierno de Sadam con Al-qaeda o organizaciones islamista. Quiero recordar que el regimén de Iraq era laico, socializante, absolutamente antagonico con el islamismo fundamentalista.
La única posible conexion, seria la donacion de una suma de dinero a las familias de suicidas palestinos en sus acciones contra Israel.
Aquí espongo las razones que a mi juicio influyeron para que Bush lanzara su "cruzada".

Razones

Despues del 11 de septiembre, ya a las claras que la "asociación" entre USA y Arabia Saudi (lugar de procedencia de los suicidas, del rigorismo islamico llamado wahabismo, y sobre todo de su financiación) no podia tener mucho futuro, pues el gobierno americano tenía falta de encontrar un nuevo aliado para poder mantener su presencia en esa parte del mundo. Que mejor candidato que un pais debilitado, y poco simpatico a la opinion pública americana. A la razones puramentes geo-estrategicas, hay que sumar que estamos encima de una de las mayores reservas de petroleo.
El control de los yacimientos es importante, sobretodo si lo relacionamos con el crecimiento de China y de sus futuras necesidades de energía y petroleo.
Tambien, me temo que muchos de los "errores" de los servicios de inteligencia de UK y USA procedan de una información contaminada procedente de Israel. Este pais, tiene como enemigo a la mayoría de paises musulmanes del entorno, así como cualquier idea de panarabismo. Israel era parte interesada en este conflicto, y se hizo dueña a la hora de manipular la opinion de USA en determinados aspectos. Estoy convencido que todo el discurso antiterrorista de Bush, Blair, y por añadidura, el de Aznar proceda de Israel. Gobiernos como el de Sharon son maestros en la provocacion y la manipulacion, como convencer al mundo que todo palestino, de la cuna a la tumba es un terrorista (en ningún caso, gente que lucha por la liberación de su pais) y que qualquier critica a su politica por parte de Europa es fruto de su antisemitismo.
Y por ultimo, claro esta, los intereses economicos de las grandes empresas, y de muchos republicanis en concreto.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Transl. Terechu

This is a pretty delicate issue, with many political, economic and geo-strategic implications, and about which many lies have been told, maybe nothing but lies.

BACKGROUND

1) To begin with, even though some of you might not like it (I mean our North American friends), we have a saying that goes “Breed crows and they will poke your eyes out”. Well, those crowns, Sadam Hussein, Al Qaeda, etc. were created by the USA. If I remember right 95% (not to say 100%) of the fundamentalist islamic terrorist groups were hatched with US aid to combat the USSR in the Afghanistan war. If you take a close look, most of the outstanding persons and leaders of all these groups are veterans from the Russian-Afghan war. It must also be pointed out that Sadam was a monster created mainly by the USA when he was supported in the Iran-Irak war, which was the American vengeance for the toppling of the Shah, who had favoured US interests and the Islamic revolution. Western countries, France and Germany stuffed their pockets selling arms to both parties. The USA also sold weapons to Iran secretly – see Irangate. Oddly enough, in that war both the USA and the USSR supported the same country: Irak.

2) After the attack of the Twin Towers, which by the way favoured Bush, the US Government was forced to act quickly (I won’t say “take revenge”) and so they decided to invade Afghanistan and topple the Talib regime. What’s not being mentioned though, is that the power is back in the hands of the War Lords who held it before the war and that as far as democracy is concerned, there’s very little to be seen. This country has had little progress.

3) I read that presumably, in compensation for the war Iran-Irak, Sadam was promised the return of the province separated from Mesopotamia when the Ottoman Empire was split up, namely Kuwait. Whether that is true or not, we all know what happened. The first Gulf War was waged with thousands of dead, many of them civilians, but Sadam was pardoned, I don’t know why, whether for fear of chaos or because the US Government was more interested in a weakened Sadam.

This actually strengthened Sadam in his own country, the population became much more dependent on this dictator. The previous killings of Kurds was done with the approval of the Western countries, which provided the arms and technology (to include the chemical products). After that war Sadam took vengeance on the Shiites, who rose up against him during the war with the aid of the USA, who later abandoned them to their fate (although Bush still wonders why they didn’t rise to welcome his troops). It is estimated that the embargo imposed afterwards caused the death of half a million Iraqis. (When will the USA learn that embargoes do not bring about popular uprising, but rather the contrary). The program oil-for-food only increased the population’s dependence on the government.

2nd Gulf War

First off: while there were no documents to substantiate that Sadam had gotten rid of his chemical weapons, it is also a fact that the inspectors found no evidence that Sadam had any stock of those arms or any ongoing program.

There was no link between Sadam’s government to Al Qaeda or any Islamist organization. Be reminded that Irak’s was a lay regime, socially oriented, and absolutely antagonistic to fundamentalist Islam.
The only possible connection would be the donation of funds to the families of the Palestinian suicide-bombers against Israel.

These are the reasons I believe prompted Bush to launch his “crusade”:

Reasons:

After September 11th, when it was already clear that the “association” between the USA and Saudi Arabia (place of birth of the terrorists, of the Islamist rigour called “Wahabism” and most important of all: source of their funding) could not have much of a future, the US Government had to look for another ally to maintain its troops in that part of the world. What better candidate than a weakened country, not very popular with the American public opinion? To the purely geo-strategic reasons, we should add that they are sitting on one of the world’s vastest oil reserves.

Controlling the oil fields is important, especially if we relate it to the growth of China and its future need for energy and oil. Also, I’m afraid that many of the “errors” by the intelligence services of the UK and USA were caused by contaminated information from Israel. That country considers most Muslim countries in the area their enemies, to include all ideas of panarabism. Israel was an interested party to this conflict and it took over when it was time to manipulate public opinion in the USA in certain aspects. I am convinced that Bush and Blair’s entire anti-terrorist stand (including that of Aznar) came right out of Israel.
Governments like Sharon’s are masters of provocation and manipulation, like convincing the work that all Palestinians, from the cradle to the grave, are terrorists (and never people who are fighting for the liberation of their homeland) and that any criticism of his politics coming from Europe is always because of antisemitism.

And lastly, of course, the financial interests of the big companies and of many specific Republicans.

Bush, para convencer al mundo, y sobretodo a su opinion pública, se invento lo de la guerra contra el terrorismo, pero como bien sabemos en Europa, en Iraq habría muchas cosas malas, pero terrorismo, desde luego que no. Lo de traer la democracia, eso no se lo creyo nadie. Desde la guerra de Corea a nuestros días, las intervenciones de USA trajeron de todo a esos paises menos democracia. Quiero recordar el ridiculo de Somalia, pais democratico hoy en día como todos sabeis .
La politica exterior de USA, vario poco en los ultimos decenios, y podemos ver que en Iraq usa los metodos ya bien aprendidos en america latina. Bueno, para ser exacto, tambien usa sistema israeli, aunque no se si estos tambien lo aprendieron de USA. La democracia no se trae a golpes de bombas ni con la utilización de tropas paramilitares, mercenarios, etc...
Tampoco apoyando gobierno corruptos, aunque esto ultimo, es vital para poder controlar un pais. Que Sadam esté en la carcel es positivo, pero es licito hacerlo a costa de la muerte de miles de personas inocentes.

En Europa, la opinion de los gobiernos fue bastante dividida. Blair, como es costumbre, apoya a los USA. Los paises de Europa del este, apoyan a USA a la que creen como unica responsable de su liberación del yugo sovietico. Italia, con un gobierno conservador, apoyo a USA, cosa que entra en la logica si vemos la politica italiana de los ultimos 50 años, donde a pesar de ser una democracia, nunca se dejo gobernar al partido comunista, usando corrupción, trampas electorales, y asesinatos si era menester. En europa continental, basicamente los gobiernos de izquierdas estaban en contra de la guerra, y los de derecha a favor, con la excepción de Francia, que no solo se explica por posible interes en el Iraq de Sadam. Francia tiene complejo de Imperio y de grandeur, y creyendose un actor importante en el mundo, entra en competencia con EEUU. La población de Europa occidental (de la oriental, no se) estaba de manera abrumadora en contra de la guerra.
En España se estima, que el 90 % de la población estaba contra la guerra. Aquí hubo manifestaciones masivas, pero el gobierno, o mas en concreto, su presidente, en una apuesta personal, involucro a España en la guerra de Iraq, con la famosa (aquí por lo menos) foto de las Azores.
Eso explica en parte su derrota electoral. Los españoles no fueron cobardes, el 12 de mayo salieron masivamente a manifestarse. Lo que pasa es que un gobierno "democratico" desoyo la opinion del pais, y sigio adelante con su cabezonería, y despues, en lugar de asumir su responsabilidad en la derota electoral, es mas facil hablar de que si los españoles son cobardes, que si hubo un golpe de estado mediatico, y demas mentiras. Aznar se creyo un estadista porque puso los pies encima de la mesa de su querido Bush, pero cuanto mas alto estas, mas grande es la caida. Aunque para explicar el caso Aznar, mejor seria un psicologo.
El atentado no fue una respuesta por el apoyo a la guerra en concreto, si no mas bien al alineamiento total de España con USA.
Nuestro ex-gobernante (gracias a dios ) cometio muchos errores. Usaron la politica de negarlo todo, de echar la culpa a otros, de no asumir responsabilidades y en ultima instancia, de insultar a los españoles con el termino "miserables" a todo aquel que no les creyera.
El gobierno nego que el atentado de Casablanca fuera contra intereses españoles, siguiendo unicamente con la cantinela del terrorismo etarra, que es el que le da votos. Cuando ocurrio el atentado de Madrid, siguieron con la misma canción, pero esta vez no colo, y perdieron las elecciones merecidamente. Yo estoy convencido que no perdieron por el atentado en sí, si no por su actuaciones despues de el, y los precedentes en los ultimos años, incluido el apoyo a la guerra. Sin apoyo a esta guerra, sin desprecio al ejercito español (Yak 42) y a nuestra inteligencia, y sin una politizacion vergonzante del terrorismo, no creo que el atentado hubiera tenido ese impacto en los resultados electorales. La vuelta de las tropas era una promesa electoral del PSOE, la vuelta a una normalidad deseada por la mayoría, y este partido no podia permitirse el no cumplir esa promesa.

Lo siento por lo largo de mis mensajes, pero estos días no hago nada, me aburro, y lo pago con ustedes

---------------------------------------------------
Transl. by Terechu

In order to convince the world, and most of all his own public opinion, Bush made up a war against terrorism, but as we all know well in Europe, there may have been many bad things about Irak, but terrirosm was not one of them. As to bringing them democracy, nobody believed that for a moment. From the Korean War to this date the military interventions by the USA brought those countries everything but democracy. Be reminded of the absurdity in Somalia, a very democratic country these days, as you all know.

The USA's foreign policy has varied little in the last decades and you can see that in Irak they use the methods already applied in Latin America. Well, to be precise, they also use the Israeli system, though I don't know whether they learned it from the USA. Democracy is not achieved through bombs, troops, paramilitaries, mercenaries,etc. Nor by supporting corrupt governments, although this latter part is vital to control a country. Sadam's being in jail is positive, but is it licit to put him there at the cost of thousands of lives of innocent people?

The governments of Europe were pretty much divided in their opinion. Blair, as is customary, supports the USA. Eastern European countries support the USA, whom they consider the one responsible for delivering them from the Soviet yoke. Italy, with a conservative government, supported the USA, which is logical if we consider their politics of the last 50 years, where despite being a democratic state, the Communist Party was never allowed to rule, through the use of corruption, vote rigging and murder when necessary.

In Continental Europe, the left-wing governments basically were against the war, and the right-wing ones in favour, except France, which cannot be explained only by their possible interests in Sadam's Irak. France still has an "Empire and Grandeur" complex and believing themselves important actors on the world stage, they clash with the USA.
Western Europe's population was overwhelmingly against the war (I don't know about Eastern Europe). It is estimated that 90% of Spain's population was against it. There were mass demonstrations here, but the government, or to be precise, its President in a personal bid, got Spain involved in the Irak war with the famous (here at least) picture of the Azores.

This partly explains his electoral defeat. Spaniards were no cowards, on May 12th they went out in the streets "en masse". What happened was that a "democratic" government refused to listen to the people's opinion and went ahead stubbornly. Then, instead of facing up to the defeat they brought on themselves, it was easier to blame it on Spaniard's cowardice, on there being a media coup and other lies. Aznar believed himself to be a statesman because he was allowed to put his feet on his darling Bush's table, but the higher they climb the harder they fall. Although to explain Aznar's case a psychologist would be best.

The terrorist attack was not a specific response to Spain's support of the war, but rather to Spain's total alignment with the USA.
Our now ex-president (thank God) made many mistakes. They used the "deny-everything" and "blame-everybody-else" tactics, refused to face up to their responsibilities, and finally insulted Spaniards by calling those who didn't believe them "miserables" (vile wretches). The Government denied that the Casablanca attack had been against Spanish interests, and went on with the same old story about Basque terrorism, which is the one that brings them votes. After the Madrid bombings they went on with the same old song, but this time it didn't
work and they lost the elections as they deserved. I am convinced that they didn't lose because of the attacks themselves, but because of their behaviour afterwards, and the political events before, including the support of the war. Had they not favoured the war, had they not despised the Spanish Army (Yak 42 miliary plane crash) and our intelligence, had they not shamelessly used terrorism for their political benefit, I don't think the bombings would have had that impact on the election results.

The return of the troops was an campaign promise of the Socialist Party (PSOE), a return to normality which everybody longed for, and that party could not afford to break that promise.

I'm sorry about the length of my posts, but I'm not doing anything these days, I'm bored and so I take it out on you.

Dos cositas que se me olvidaban.

Jomaguca, todavía no vi a ningun partido que prometiera algo en su programa electoral para perder las elecciones. En politica tambien funciona la oferta y la demanda. El pueblo español demandaba en su gran mayoría el retorno de las tropas y el partido socialista se lo ofrecio, para ganar, evidentemente El PP valoro otras cosas que entendia como mas importante, me imagino que para ganar. Lo único que pueda quebrar esta regla, son intereses particulares de los politicos que les pueda compensar el perder. Como unas clases en Georgetown ...

La incultura de la población y nuestro desconocimiento son las mejores armas de los politicos para creernos sus mentiras. El desconocimiento del "otro" es una de las razones de la xenofobia, y de la manipulación por parte de las oligarquias de la ciudadanía haciendonos creer que los otros son nuestros enemigos, se envuelven en una bandera para enriquecerse a nuetra costa. Quiero recomendaros una "banda dibujada" (la palabra comic me recuerda demasiado a superman y tal, teveo es infantil, y en gallego existe la de banda dibuxada, o algo parecido) de una autora de un pais perteneciente al "eje del mal" de Bush donde podemos darnos cuenta que esa gente, que nos dicen enemiga nuestra, es bastante parecida a nosotros.
Se trata de "Persepolis" de Marjane Satrapi. Os lo recomiendo, es muy bueno. Si vos gusto el "Maus" de Art Spiegelman, este debería gustaros tambien.
Un saludo

-----------
translated by Art & Reverso

I forgot two things.

Jomaguca, I still did not see any party promising anything in their electoral platform in order to lose the elections. The principle of supply and demand also works in politics. The Spanish people were demanding by a great majority the return of the troops and the socialist party offered this, out of a desire to win, evidently. The PP valued other things that it understood to be more important, I imagine, than winning. The only thing that could break this rule are particular interests of the politicians that could compensate for losing. Like a few classes in Georgetown ...

The lack of education of the population and our ignorance are the best weapons of the politicians in getting us to believe their lies. The ignorance of "other" is one of the reasons for xenophobia, and for the [successful] manipulation of the citizenship on the part of the oligarchies to make us believe that others are our enemies--they wrap themselves in the flag to prosper at our cost.

I want to recommend to you a "Banda Dibujada" [Art: Berodia's term for a "comic book"] (The word play reminds me too much of superman and the like, "tebeo" is infantile [Art: "tebeo" is another term for "comic book" which he sees as a little juvenile-sounding], and in Galician there is the "banda dibuxada", or something similar) by an author from a country belonging to the "Axis of evil" of Bush where we can realize that these people, which they tell us are our enemies, are similar enough to us. This was a topic dealt with in Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis". I recommend it to you; it is very good. If you like Art Spiegelman's "Maus", you should like this one also.

Best wishes!

Could someone please translate Berodia's words...I would be interested in reading them.

Also, Jomagua Thank You for your words. Yes, we did suffer a tremendous loss on 9/11 and I am afraid that some people are forgetting all that we lost. Not only 3,000 of our people but our sense of security.

Uy uy uy, Berodia.

Tu as été émigrant en France, bien sûr, je me trompe? "La bande dessinnée"...

Salut et bon courage avec tes messages, dont le sens général je partage

---------------------------

"Touche pas mon pot"


-------------------------------------------
Translated by Bob

Yes, yes, yes Berodia,

You have surely been an emigrant to France , or am I mistaken? "The comic strip [cartoon?]" lol

Cheer and good luck with your messages, which in the general sense I share

---------------------------


"Don't touch my jar (chamberpot?)"

Berodia ,en eso estamos de acuerdo ,pero el partido socialista prometió hace 15 años más o menos 800000 puestos de trabajo y tú los viste? bueno no quiero entrar en polémica porqué yo no soy ni mejor ni peor qué tú por pensar diferente y qué conste qué no soy de derechas,aunque los de izquierda dejan bastante qué desear ,o no lo estas viendo, qué para lo único qué se ponen de acuerdo unos y otros es para el asunto de los sueldos, es lo único qué les preocupa, también quiero darle las gracias a Barbara .saludos


__________________________
Translated by Bob

Berodia, I agree with you on this, but the socialist party for 15 years has promised 80,000 jobs, more or less, and have you seen them [materialize]? Well, I don't want to get into a dispute because I am neither better nor worse than you for thinking differently and because I am clearly not on the right although the left leaves much to be desired. Or are you not seeing it, that becaue the only thing that puts them in agreement with one another is the subject of salaries, it is the only thing that they worry about. Also, I want to give my thanks to Barbara. Greetings

¿ Home jomaguca, que quiés que te diga ?

No voy a entrar porque no es el tema de este foro. Solamente que cualquier partido hace muchas promesas, y cumple pocas. Si te pones a mirar, el PP tambíen incumplio muchas, otra cosa es que unos o otros sepan vender bien sus aciertos y los "errores" de los contrarios.

No te quejes, por una vez que el PSOE cumple con algo que prometio ...

Pero las criticas al PP, creo que estan totalmente acertadas por el apoyo a esta guerra, y su politica exterior y antiterrorista en general.
Todavía estoy esperando una explicación en boca del Sr. Aznar de porque tuvo esa decisión personal de apoyar a EEUU en esta guerra. Zapatero, al menos dio una explicación de su oposición, que puede ser mas o menos creible, pero la dio. Aznar, no. Bush y Blair admitieron haberse "equivocado" con las amenazas de Sadam. Aznar, no
En este caso, por lo menos, el PSOE no nos defraudo.

In many ways we vote according to our emotional response to issues. And politicians take stands either to exploit our emotions or because of their own emotional reactions.

Aznar, a man who had been the target of an attack by Basque extremists, would be very likely to respond emotionally to a call to go to war against "terrorists".

And supposedly Bush's father had been targeted by Saddam. So is it any wonder that he'd want revenge?

Of course, neither Bush nor Aznar is likely to explain these motivations, because no one wants to be seen as reacting emotionally. Or, no one wants to look too human!

The sad truth is that emotional reactions like this generally don't promote the common good. But that's what we all do.

For this reason, we have not choice but to be on guard against our own emotional responses and the manipulation of our emotions by politicians.

---------------

En muchos sentidos, votamos según nuestra respuesta emocional a cuestiones. Y los políticos adoptan posiciones para explotar nuestras emociones o debido a sus propias reacciones emocionales.

Aznar, un hombre que había sido el objetivo de un ataque por extremistas vascos, con mucha probabilidad respondería emocionalmente a una llamada de ir a la guerra contra "terroristas".

Y supuestamente el padre de Bush había fijado como objectivo por Saddam. ¿Entonces queda alguna sorpresa que querría la venganza?

Desde luego, ni Bush ni Aznar va a explican estas motivaciones, porque nadie quiere ser visto como reaccionando emocionalmente. ¡O, nadie quiere parecer demasiado humano!

La realidad triste es que reacciones emocionales como estos generalmente no promueven el bien común. Pero esto es lo que hacemos todos.

Por eso, no tenemos otra opción: tenemos que estar en guardia contra nuestras propias respuestas emocionales y contra la manipulación de nuestras emociones por los políticos.

As I watch the Democratic convention, I can only hope for better times here in the USA. The war in Iraq and our decision to act, essentially, unilaterally are, in my opinion, disasters.

To Terechu...........As the grandson of Asturianos, I, for one, am proud of Spain's decision to withdraw from Iraq. Rather than seeing it as an act of cowardice or disloyalty to an ally, I see it as a courageous and practical act in the best interest of Spain. It takes courage to admit, for whatever reason, that a previous decision was wrong and to correct it. Bravo a ustedes!!!!!!!!!!!

I have been reading all the comments written in the 9/11 3/11 forum with interest.

I must state , however, that I am a President Bush Supporter and have always been. I am a Mother of a Air National Guardsman who is a Air Sea Rescue Fireman working full/time at a base. He could be deployed at any time. You should ask the Military what they think of President Bush.

We went to war in the first place because of some bad intelligence from our Agencies and those of Great Britain and Russa. I know that President Bush really thought there were WMD's in Iraq and they would be a threat to us. Before our going to Iraq President Bush tap danced with the UN trying to get support. During this time Saddam had a good chance to hide all those weapons, probably in Syria or Iran...or they could be buried in that vast desert. Don't you think there was a reason why the UN Inspectors were not permitted to go into certain areas of Iraq...and they were asked to leave many times. He had to have had them because of all the people he killed in his own country with gas. Don't people think that he had more, or that he was capable of having other WMD's.

I know that there are a lot of people reading this who disagree with me, but that makes this Country such a Wonderful Place to live...we can all disagree. However, I think in our disagreement we should treat President Bush with respect because after all he is our President. I have no love for Senator Kerry or Senator Edwards, but they are Senators and also deserve respect. They were voted into office by THE PEOPLE!

Hi Barbara,

Thanks for your post. It disagrees with other posted opinions without being disagreeable--just what we had hoped to achieve in the political discussion area of the forum. I am happy that you and others feel free to express their opinions in our forum, and I hope that your son remains safe and out of danger.

I think that we can all learn from one another by a free exchange of ideas and opinions, even if we never reach agreement. It would be a boring world if we all agreed and, in my opinion, friendly dialogue is much more important that consensus. At the very least, appreciating the points of views of others is something that can help unite us as Asturian-Americans.

I have strongly held political opinions, but will not express them in this forum because I have volunteered to serve as the neutral moderator.

Bob Martinez

Thank you Bob for your comments.

When I posted my remarks I knew that they would disagree with a lot of others... However, I felt that I wanted my opinion out there. I would NEVER be insulting because that defeats the purpose. I am so glad that you put this topic in a separate Forum and there are ground rules...Again, Thank you Bob...