| Submit your comments on this article | |
| Europe | |
| Zapatero Becomes Spanish Leader | |
| 2004-03-15 | |
| MADRID, Spain (AP) - Before the deaths of 200 people in Madrid's terror bombings, few expected mild-mannered lawyer Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero to become Spain's next prime minister. His Socialist Party had trailed the ruling conservatives throughout the campaign. Opponents called him inexperienced; others said he lacked flash. But everything changed after bombs tore through rush-hour trains on Thursday. Zapatero never sought to exploit the bombings - but as the candidate who had consistently criticized Spain's decision to send 1,300 troops to Iraq, he benefited when voters opted to punish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar's support for the U.S.-led war. Many believe that Aznar's support made Spain a target for terrorists. Under Aznar, Spain had eight years of economic growth and unemployment fell to 11 percent, still the highest in the European Union. Many felt sure those successes would be enough to hand victory to Aznar's hand-picked candidate to succeed him, Mariano Rajoy. Zapatero, meanwhile, had been criticized by some as inexperienced and lacking in charisma. The first time Zapatero met Aznar, as the Socialist Party's new leader in 2000, he nervously tripped over a paving stone outside the prime minister's office. Zapatero's quiet and consensual style has been credited for a revival in the Socialists' fortunes. But he has also never served in Spain's Cabinet, leading some to question whether he is ready for the role. He was the Socialists' youngest lawmaker when first elected in 1986 at age 26. He shone sufficiently in local politics in the northern city of Leon, where he grew up, for the Socialists to turn to him after their disastrous 2000 election campaign, when Aznar won a second term. The execution of Zapatero's grandfather, a captain in the Republican Army, by dictator Gen. Francisco Franco's Nationalist forces, strongly shaped Zapatero leftist ideals. He studied law but his passion was politics after he attended a political rally when he was 16. The speaker was Felipe Gonzalez, a charismatic Socialist leader who guided Spain's return to democracy in the 1980s after decades of dictatorship. He still keeps a portrait of Gonzalez in his office. Zapatero has pledged to order Spain's 1,300 soldiers in Iraq home when their tour in Iraq ends in July - but he will also be under intense pressure to strengthen Spain's domestic security. "My most immediate priority will be to fight terrorism," Zapatero said shortly after his win.
| |
| Posted by:Steve White |
| #28 Aris, your country does beat Turkey where democracy and freedom is concerned - I totally agree. Unfortunately those great ideals and ways of life must be protected by rough men armed and ready to do so, I wonder if your country or more specifically your gov't has this will. By the training I've seen your armed forces conduct, I'd say they do not. Plus, It's hard to speak of freedom when you are not willing to fight for your own or for that of others. As for voting said government out in Spain, I'd venture a guess by looking at the polls up to a week before the bombing that Aznar's party would have stayed in power if not for the attack. I believe the Spanish became afraid and voted for the socialists, thus the surprising upset. Like I said before - the Spanish majority vote has been acknowledged and there will be a new leadership, I'm not particularly happy w/it but such is life. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-15 11:39:28 PM |
| #27 Aris, what will be Greece's response to mass murder by AQ types before the Olympics (it's coming and your helpless to stop it, the bombs are already there). Will they treat it like a crime or as an attack on Greece or an attack on western civilisation? I'll tell you this. Not many Americans will be there. It will EU's as the cannon fodder. You'll be looking like not only fucking idiots but whimpering fucking idiots. And guess what. You'll do nothing but point fingers at the CIA and whimper. Greece will do NOTHING. |
| Posted by: Lucky 2004-3-15 11:13:35 PM |
| #26 11A5S> Not for our freedom, 11A5s -- as shown by the colonels, just for lack of Communist tyranny -- other forms of tyrannies were just as welcome. And don't tell me that you were just being good allies in "saving us from the Communists", and you would have nothing to lose if Greece passed to communist rule. And depends on what you mean "really tangled" - 1970s could also be considered "really tangled" I believe. That's when the Greek Dictatorship tried to pull a coup at Cyprus, and Turkey found the opportunity to invade and ethnically clease the island. Not that I understand why any of the above is important to the discussion. Point remains that a country can't expect other countries to lend troops without being first convinced of the necessity and justice of the war in question. You failed to convince and you failed to even care to combat the rise of Antiamericanism in the continent. Now Spain has magically transformed into an "Old Europe" nation it seems (since the definition of "Old Europe" is "countries you dislike".) |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-3-15 8:35:33 PM |
| #25 Aris: You hammered out a pretty good deal then. One infantry battalion and one air transport battalion for your freedom. Remind me to never bargain with a Greek. Jarhead: The last time the Greeks and Turks really tangled was in the 1920's. The Greeks decided to invade Asia Minor and "liberate" the Greek minorities in the Turkish coastal cities. They called this the "Great Idea." Ataturk sucked them into the Anatolian heartland, counterattacked and kicked the Greek army and the Greek minority out of Turkey. The Greek Army ran like scalded apes. They didn't even bother to stand and fight for the Greek coastal cities. They just loaded the freighters and sailed away. The Turks marched right into the towns and started massacre'ing Greeks while the Greek Army was safe, warm and dry back in ol' Hellas. The Greeks treated their refugee brethren like red-headed step children. The tensions lasted for decades. Oops, sorry Aris. I know how you Greeks don't like to talk about this little imperialist misadventure and its unfortunate aftermath. All: If you are ever getting harangued by a Greek for all our faults, just mention the "Great Idea." It shuts them up almost every time. |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-3-15 6:09:42 PM |
| #24 Bulldog> the comments advocating violence against Spaniards are disgusting and do not reflect the opinions or the wishes of most 'conservatives' who frequent this blog. You know that so stop being disingenuous No, I *don't* know that. Perhaps you do, but I don't. When half the people advocate, violence, invasion, nuking or just calling the Spanish people "cunts", and the other half people don't object, then I very much *don't* know that these opinions don't reflect the opinions of most conservatives in this forum. Jarhead> Yeah, but we beat Turkey where democracy and freedom is concerned, which is tons more important. .com> "It is certainly understandable that, when an ally turns tail and runs at the first real challenge, those left in the lurch would be unhappy and characterize the act as cowardice" Except that the Spanish people never "turned tail and run" because they never supported you in Iraq. 90% of them were consistently opposed. So how did they "turn tail and run", when they never changed their minds, just forced their elected government to do the people's bidding? "The âold Europeâ politicians created the split between the US and Europe " Certain European politicians made a split on policy - you made a split based on *nature*. Some European politicians attacked Bush. SOme American politicians attacked whole nations. Thinking past the narrow-minded, one-eyed view of history where the history of the War on Terror will begin and end with Bush's administration, which of two attitudes do you think will be less easy to heal? The attacks on a particular administration, or the attacks on *nations* throughout an entire continent? "1) Europe didnât march lockstep with Chirac and Shroeder " No, but it opposed the war on Iraq, and Europe's majority (even among the conservatives) thinks Rumsfeld's America overbearingly arrogant. "2) You are blinded by your own *personal* hatred â you are not the touchstone of European opinion, any more than I speak for all Americans" Indeed no, most Europeans were more opposed to the War on Iraq, than I was. "Your assertion regards Al Qaeda is typically myopic. As many here in RB have said, terror isnât solely the province of AlQ. " True but in this war we cared about Islamofascism, not some petty secular tyrant. With it's center at Iran, with its chief battlefield and cause in Israel/Palestine, as supported by Syria. "Affilliated" Pfft! Yeah, Al Qaeda is "affiliated" throughout the Muslim world, that doesn't mean each country is an equally important target. Spain was "affiliated" with the Nazis, but if US had invaded Spain during WW2 that would have been just as dumb as the invasion of Iraq. 11A5s> What I tend to think about that is "Repaid in Korea". Jarhead> I'd say the onus was on them and their gov't not us That's why they voted said government out, isn't it? Point remains that you didn't convince and sometimes I think that you didn't even care to convince. Then you act annoyed that your allies, unsatisfied about the purpose and/or effeciveness of the war, will eventually have to go with the wishes of the electorate. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-3-15 5:38:18 PM |
| #23 Jarhead sir, I figured the few week delay would be enough time for the Marines to get a nice sunny Med cruise. By then Aris and his boys would be in their preferred place, bent over and "under" the Turks. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-3-15 5:09:48 PM |
| #22 Tanx (and lots of them, please!) - please jump in and fill all the gaps I missed! I assume everyone knows the feeling - 2 seconds after you hit submit you realize there are 5 more things you forgot to say! Shit! Please cover if you're inclined to waste 30 minutes on our resident Ameriphobe. ;-) |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-15 5:07:27 PM |
| #21 It's so refreshing when Anus Kat's-anus lets his mask of civility slip and his true nature show. |
| Posted by: docob 2004-3-15 4:54:38 PM |
| #20 .com. Well said! |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-3-15 4:23:44 PM |
| #19 Ed, please don't send us to back up the Greeks, we'd be bailing their sorry asses out after their first exchange of fire w/the Turks (then we'd have the greeks behind us - God forbid and no pun intended). I've trained w/both sides, pound for pound, murat's boys would put a butt slamming to aris' compadres (though I think deep down they're not really opposed to the idea). Both sides really have no concept of combined arms, maneuver warfare, standards, or marksmanship other then what we can show them during a two week training evolution. I could go into details but let's just say that if you've ever seen Capt Correlis' mandolin, substitute the greeks for the italians and your pretty close to the ineptitude. Turks are not much better. I guess it would be a kin to two fat old ugly drunk chicks flailing around in a mud wrestling contest. Of course, both sides could always combine and we could send in the 2nd Marine Division to clean house on them - I'd doubt the turko/greek cluster fuck would last a week from the shit I've seen them do during live exercises. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-15 4:20:22 PM |
| #18 .com, I think I just jizzed on my screen; good stuff. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-15 4:10:31 PM |
| #17 AK â You never fail to disappoint and your screech is spoken like a true Socialist ideologue. Typically, you sprinkle a few distortions in with a fat load of opinion â and then, with the patented *eyes sparkling* look of the True Believer - you assume there is no refutation possible. That you are convinced your are right is obvious. That what you said is irrefutable is the classic self-delusion of an idiotarian. It is certainly understandable that, when an ally turns tail and runs at the first real challenge, those left in the lurch would be unhappy and characterize the act as cowardice. That is what it is, no matter how you wish to paint it. Equivocation: If it turns out to be ETA, then X. If it turns out to be Al Q, then Y. Difference between the two? ETA is a known quantity â the enemy they understand. Al Qaeda is one they donât understand â or didnât until the Madrid attack. A collaboration between the two appears most likely, now. But what did the Spanish voting public do when challenged by a foe that is, by any factual characterization, totally dedicated to the fall of civilization rather than a group dedicated to claiming a slice of land for the Basques? They blamed Aznar and the US and fell to their knees in abject appeasement. 90% of what has been written about this on RB is accurate: they will most certainly regret their actions. Beyond Spain, everyone else will pay a price as well, in some measure, for the cowardice of the Spanish vote. It doesnât matter if you agree â this will be plainly shown to be the case over the next few years. You can bitch THEN if Iâm wrong. As for: âYou fucking idiots, you thought it amusing when the idiot Rumsfeld and his gang turned the whole of the European continent against them -- "We can do it alone, we don't need no Europeans" you said and laughed and mocked and you didn't see that every bit of mockery made America a little bit more isolated and thus a little bit *weaker*. Idiots. Idiots. So, now you've won Iraq and lost Europe -- was the bargain worth it?â As usual, you are dead wrong. Timeline, Aris, you canât discard the event sequence just because it suits your Socialist feelings. The âold Europeâ politicians created the split between the US and Europe â well before the Iraq War and long before Rumsfeldâs comments. A few European politicians made an adversarial relationship the core of their political campaigns in a classic disingenuous appeal to nationalism. A society which has systemic problems (economic or whatever) and is led by a government of self-serving assholes is quick to grasp the excuse of an external culprit. Works well â as history has shown repeatedly, from classic fascism to Nazism. So Shroeder, Chirac, et al combined their desire to acquire some measure of lost international relevancy with the old standby â the politically popular notion that what ails their societies canât possibly be rooted in the policies of their government or the failing of their electorate â it must be the evil external bogeyman. America served well for both arguments because it was successful, powerful, and convenient. The âgapâ was created in Europe by European politicians. That the abuse heaped upon us pissed off the US public and generated some outrage is natural. The eventual outbreak of boycotts against Phrench (in particular) products was not orchestrated by the government â Americans often do this sort of thing independently, or arenât you aware that we DO decide such things individually? I know thatâs a shocker for you but itâs true. That you canât recall this OBVIOUS timeline and how the enmity developed refutes your characterization and shows youâre a demagogue. To say we won Iraq and lost Europe â ignores at least 2 facts and confirms 1 fact: 1) Europe didnât march lockstep with Chirac and Shroeder 2) You are blinded by your own *personal* hatred â you are not the touchstone of European opinion, any more than I speak for all Americans 3) Things are, indeed, going well in Iraq â given the short timeline, thus far Your assertion regards Al Qaeda is typically myopic. As many here in RB have said, terror isnât solely the province of AlQ. There are many insane mercenaries in the world, acting under many different guises and calling themselves by many different names. That they (and some regimes) cooperate here and there is not as novel as you seem to presume. Abu Abbas (recent demised) and Ansar Al Islam are obvious cases in point. Iraq was undertaken for a number of reasons â and AlQ has been shown to be affiliated with both Saddamâs secular regime as well as Ansar Al Islam. Capturing and killing the morons, both hardcore terrorists and wannabee terrorists, in Iraq has at least two obvious benefits: it takes them out of circulation (unavailable for escapades elsewhere) and makes all funds expended on their behalf null. Flypaper strategy. Why donât you acquaint yourself with the idea? The simple fact that AlQ operations have been extremely limited since Iraq moved to the front burner should tell you something⦠but you do have to be paying attention to everything, not just those facts which fit into your ideology. What you know versus what you pretend to know or wish to be true seem to be rather widely separated. Youâve reduced your influence yet again with such inane statements. You say we know nothing about soft power â how, um, presumptuous. Stop the presses: Aris Katsaris is now instructing the US Government. Quiet. Hey, there, Rumsfeld! You, too, Wolfowitz! Sit up straight. Pay attention! Class in session. Puhleeze. The day *you* begin to demonstrate you can support your positions with facts instead of flights of fancy and flawed reasoning, weâll take a look at what you have to say. Idiot. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-15 2:59:00 PM |
| #16 ...I know preparations for the Games aren't going too well, but having to ensure security to people you think are f!cking idiots isn't reassuring. Are all the moronic tw@ts otherwise engaged building the athletes' village? The w@nking retards busy on promotion and advertising? OT: Wonder if Murat still intends to attend? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-15 2:34:48 PM |
| #15 Aris, the comments advocating violence against Spaniards are disgusting and do not reflect the opinions or the wishes of most 'conservatives' who frequent this blog. You know that so stop being disingenuous, and get off your high moral rocking horse. You should have never even *asked* for troops to come from countries where the popular opinion opposed the war. Funny how the Greek Government has no problem with asking the Americans and the British to come to Greece's aid and help try to prevent al Qaeda crashing your Olympic party this summer. Becuase by your logic, having not participated in the attack on Iraq, you really shouldn't have anything to fear. Right? |
| Posted by: Bulldog 2004-3-15 2:07:21 PM |
| #14 Aris - you asked: "now you've won Iraq and lost Europe -- was the bargain worth it?" It's too early to tell, but likely yes. The potential gain from a free Iraq is much greater than the potential loss from a pissy Europe. Look at the WMD and their proliferation we have uncovered so far: Libya (chemical, potential nuclear hidden from the UN), Iran (potential nuclear largely hidden from the UN, and Pakistan (nuclear profileration hidden from UN). As the situation in Iraq stabilizes the potential to transform other Muslim countries will increase. Given that Greece was once part of the Muslim world, how will you feel when they get around to you? It's just a matter of time. |
| Posted by: Spot 2004-3-15 1:49:49 PM |
| #13 Hmm, if I asked the American government to invade Turkey Glady Aris. We'll send 1800 soldiers to support our valuable ally Greece. Hell, we may go wild and even send up to 2000 Marines. So go ahead and do it, you proud sons of Sparta. Us Merkins will be along in a few weeks. |
| Posted by: ed 2004-3-15 1:25:45 PM |
| #12 Aris: All Europeans aren't against the war in Iraq. Opinion polls have shown levels of support varying from 10% to 50% depending on the time and country. If Sunday's vote in Spain is to be regarded as a referendum, then it seems that a large minority of Spaniards still support the American stance on the WoT. How well did "soft power" work in 1949? If it hadn't been for James Van Fleet, would we be having this conversation right now, or would you be too busy digging yourself out of the ruble (I'm not being literal here) of the People's Democratic Republic of Greece? You're always talking about how we screwed you guys over by supporting the Colonels. (And I mostly agree with you.) What do you think about us saving you from the Commies? |
| Posted by: 11A5S 2004-3-15 1:21:45 PM |
| #11 Aris, I am grateful to the Spanish who have served or are serving in Iraq. I think the Spanish vote was disagreeable to me but I agree w/you totaly that advocating the hurting of any Spaniard is dead wrong and not in line w/my ethics at all. If Spain pulls her troops out, that's fine w/me, I will not blame their Soldiers who have been great warriors, I will sit back and be amused by the actions of their government, yes, their democratic process as Mike S said worked as it was supposed to - they had a clean vote and the more popular opinion won out - such is life; I pray for them it doesn't come back to bite them in the ass. As for the rest of your comments, "You should have used troops only coming from countries who did believe Iraq was part of the War on Terror." I'd say the onus was on them and their gov't not us, if they did not take frances route then that's on them to reckon. Maybe our politics don't meet *your* morally superior euro-sensibilities, though I think in the long run, europe will return as usual. Sometimes the U.S. needs a clintonesque politician and sometimes it takes a cowboy; these days we're in need of a cowboy. Europe will be pissed at us for a while no doubt, however, some years from now me thinks things will get back in synch. Finally, I would rather be an idiot then a pussy who has abdicated the defense of their nation to the UN. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-15 12:58:12 PM |
| #10 School yard rules. Once spain gives into al-q, they are gonna be hit again and again. Aris - if the spanish dont want to be there, then we dont want them there. We dont need and fair weather friends. |
| Posted by: flash91 2004-3-15 12:45:04 PM |
| #9 It's nice to see how grateful you are about Spain sending its sons in Iraq, just because they are your allies, in a war that the Spanish people really had no interest in, but partook only on blind faith as example of loyalty. You are *so* grateful, that (as I've often seen done by conservatives) you now take this offer of lives as granted and are angered when it's withdrawn - to the point that people are seriously saying they will beat Spaniards up. And why? Because they voted for a person you don't like and will no longer help you in your war. Hmm, if I asked the American government to invade Turkey, and they said "no", would I be allowed to beat up everyone who voted for said government? Would I be allowed to kill them? Would I be allowed to to drive planes into their skyscrapers? Jon Shep, like several other people here has the soul of a terrorist. What's the last thing America did anything good for Spain, btw? Why should they support an unpopular war? You fucking idiots, you thought it amusing when the idiot Rumsfeld and his gang turned the whole of the European continent against them -- "We can do it alone, we don't need no Europeans" you said and laughed and mocked and you didn't see that every bit of mockery made America a little bit more isolated and thus a little bit *weaker*. Idiots. Idiots. So, now you've won Iraq and lost Europe -- was the bargain worth it? You never understood the meaning of soft power. You should have never even *asked* for troops to come from countries where the popular opinion opposed the war. You can't win a war where your own public disagrees with it. Up to now, Spain disagreed with war, but didn't care about it. With the bombings (not financed by Saddam Hussein, because he's rotting in a jail somewhere) it still disagrees with the war, but *does* care about it. Because no European thinks that the war on Iraq helped defeat Al Qaeda one bit. You should have used troops only coming from countries who did believe Iraq was part of the War on Terror. You idiots. |
| Posted by: Aris Katsaris 2004-3-15 12:24:03 PM |
| #8 Mike, apparently that's the deal. The only Spaniards w/any nuts are in Iraq serving. I believe that when one negotiates or votes from a postiion of fear (in this case), one is doomed to be victimized at will by their oppressor. This attack was pretty sophisticated, prolly more so then what Basque separatists could do, I'd swag it as prolly Al Q. |
| Posted by: Jarhead 2004-3-15 10:46:47 AM |
| #7 I hope they do. Spineless bastardos. |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-3-15 10:46:12 AM |
| #6 If Spain pulls out of Iraq, will ETA conclude that if you just hit the Spanish people with a big enough atrocity, they'll cut and run? For Spain's sake, I hope not. |
| Posted by: Mike 2004-3-15 9:05:47 AM |
| #5 Fnuckers. I say we invade! |
| Posted by: Howard UK 2004-3-15 7:41:37 AM |
| #4 fuckin gutless greasy AQ appeasing euro cunts spaniards, thanks to these dumb cunt spaniards were gonna be in for booms before elections, thanks again you greasy fuck nozles. If i ever see a spaniard on holiday in my town i shall ask him who he voted for, wrong answer will get him a swift serious of vicious blows in his greasy face. I now hate them more then the french and so should you |
| Posted by: Jon Shep U.K 2004-3-15 4:00:30 AM |
| #3 Prez Skeery...Haha.... |
| Posted by: Garrison 2004-3-15 2:16:50 AM |
| #2 Zapatero kept his mouth shut publicly as required in part by law and in part by the period of national mourning. Other Socialist Party members fully and completely in a vile and sickening display demagogued the bombing to Zapatero's obvious advantage. To this American, it appeared as though the Socialist Party was "pre-PREPARED" to exploit the day of carnage. I admit, appearances can be deceiving. If it turns out the bombings were committed by indigenous left-wingers hoping to influence the election to Socialist Party advantage, one hopes Spaniards will demand a new election. |
| Posted by: Garrison 2004-3-15 1:59:14 AM |
| #1 Zapatero? Terrorism Tough Guy? Ya righ. Talk. You never know what you're made of until a real life or death moment arrives. For the time being, methinks they've misspelled Chamberlain. Even if he's got stones, he got the job because the Spanish have revealed themselves to be a gutless flock of sheep. Their chosen path leads to dhimmitude and an obviously appropriate return to historical insignificance. Aznar is most certainly welcome in the US - at least until our homegrown Gutless Turd, Prez Skeery, takes office. |
| Posted by: .com 2004-3-15 1:48:15 AM |