I'm Proud Of Spain And Their Use Of Real Democracy

When 90% Say No To No Avail, It's Not Democracy

Published on April 21, 2004 By mikimouse In Politics

The US is leading the charge against Spain and saying their actions are a victory for the terrorists. But of course that is the ignorant way of looking at it. Let's think. What's democracy? It's being able to vote for representatives who will represent them. One-person-one-vote. We know this. So when 90% of Spain was telling their politicians: "Don't send the men to Iraq without the UN, don't send them to war or false pretenses" and their politicians sent them anyways to suck up the US, that's not democracy. The huge majority of Spain said no, so their leaders should have listened. The new leader has acted like a true representative of his people. As opposition leader, he said if elected he would recall the troops back to Spain. And he did. When was the last time a US president followed through with his pre-election promises? Think about it for a year. Good luck. Thank the Lord there is a government somewhere who actually listens to its people and responds in kind. Sending troops to Iraq over huge majority protests was a travesty of democracy which should have infuriated the free world. But instead an act of true and real democracy is villified as wrong and they take to cowardly position by saying it's supporting terrorists. I don't support terrorists. I support democracy. Do you?

Comments (Page 6)

mikimouse

on Apr 28, 2004

*clap* Nice links and it shows insight into what the real double standards are. And SuperBaby do you enjoy doing that?

messybuu

on Apr 28, 2004

I see nothing about Spain in there, but I'll agree that the U.S. was bullying Germany and Belgium while France and Germany was bullying the U.S. with sandbagging NATO and by this action:

France and the other 14 council members voted unanimously last year to allow the US exemption from the court. But yesterday France, and Germany - which was not on the council last year - sent a protest to Washington by abstaining in the vote. Syria also abstained.

Draginol

on Apr 28, 2004

It's often difficult to debate with left-wing extremists because they don't seem capable of even basic objectivity.

This article is a perfect example.

I wrote: "Ah so your argument is that the US is to be held to a different standard than France."

Mikimouse responsds: "go away and play little fella. How you came up with that is too beyond reality for me. Sorry though."

Someone else writes: "criticizing Spain is "bullying", yet criticizing the U.S. is perfectly fine"

To which Mikimouse responds: "well, consider the US as the biggest toughest guy in the schoolyard, then think of Spain an an ant"

So essentially yes, it's a double standard. This is why I don't usually read Mikmouse's blog. It's just not serious thinking. Vapid patronization of opposing arguments is the best you get from him. This is why the left has been so ineffective in recent years. This is what qualifies as "reasoning".

The bottom line is that the Spanish people, after being attacked by terrorists, switched their support to a candidate who promised to get them out of Iraq. The people were already against being in Iraq overall but the terrorist attack pushed them over the edge.

The US, understandably, criticizes Spain for this act.

I even put together a few other points to this such as the obvious fact that US troops have now had to take over the spots that the Spanish troops were holding. So now more Americans are at risk of death and dying. So common sense would expect the US government to try to do what it can to protect Americans such as trying to keep the Spanish there to help us. But that gets ignored by people like Mikimouse.

Solitair

on Apr 29, 2004

Critizing a country is perfectly acceptable as is applying political persuasion to change something you don't like.

Applying negative economic or military persuasion is not acceptable though.

France and Germany applied political pressure on the US. The US needed the French vote in the UN and France refused and threathened to use it's veto. This is political pressure and perfectly acceptable as it does not impinge on the soveignty of another country. The US retaliated by looking at applying negative economic actions.

I have no problem with the US critizing Spain's decision. I have no problem with the US government trying to convince Spain to reverse it's decision. Anything more than that, such as threats of economic actions, would be unacceptable though.

Paul.

couchman

on Apr 29, 2004

Reply #47 By: shadesofgrey - 4/26/2004 7:01:10 PM
France and Germany and what not are just trying to "strong arm" the will of the American people.

Not exactly, France and Germany were saying that they were not going to support the war, and that they were voting against the UN intervening. If France and Germany had strong armed the US into not going to war, that would be undemocratic --but they didn't they simply said they weren't taking part. (I'm just agreeing with your polls, though for every pro-war poll you give, I am sure counter with an anti-war poll).

People have the right to voice their opinions, that is not anti-democratic.

lol...then I guess that France having their ego-driven diplomats flying from country to country to errode their support of the US-led coaltion before the war and following the passing of 1441 in the Security Council doesnt rate in your book as strong-arming the US-led effort? The left loves to cry the war was all bout oil....well to an extent it was....all bout the oil contracts for France and Russia...with Germany intrested in other ventures in Iraq...as was China....opps I cited a fact ..go figure...as for the Spanish election......they punked out....since every poll before the Madrid bombing showed that Anzar's Popular party would win even with the 85-90% disapproval over deploying troops to Iraq...but I guess that doesnt count...oh, one last point....since Spain, Honduras and the Dominican Republic have/are leaving in Iraq...only bout 1,300 (Spain), 300 (Honduras), 370 (DR), their troops leaving are not gonna cause any problems especially since the UK is begining to flesh out plans on deploying an additional 1,500 - 2,000 troops as part of another planned multi-national division under their command....also add Poland in that category as they are looking at deploying more as well...and even more interesting is the fact that Austria and Iceland are seriously considering deploying serious numbers as well....
In the end Spain will reap what she sowed....after all the Islamo-fascists still consider Spain "a former Islamic nation occupied by Infidels".....talk bout holding a grudge!

Corio

on Apr 29, 2004

SuperBaby: my comment was a response to your post :

I don't see anything that suggests that the U.S. was bullied anybody.

That's why you don't see anything about Spain in the links. I was just a little late, didn't see the posts after that...

Solitair: I agree. That was the point I was trying to make.

mikimouse

on Apr 29, 2004

this thread is going far...keep em coming and bring em on.

messybuu

on Apr 29, 2004

I don't see the difference really. France and Germany were trying to force the U.S. to act against the will of its people by withholding something the U.S. needed. The U.S., meanwhile, was trying to force Germany to act against the will of its people by withholding something Germany needed.

Corio

on Apr 29, 2004

See #79 Super Baby.

Once again: A vote in the UN is just that - a vote. Political pressure, lobbying is of course happening before any vote. And I see nothing wrong with that. It's all part of politics. France and Germany didn't "withhold" something the US needed. They voted. The US should respect the outcome of that vote, instead of cranking up the propaganda machine and threaten them with economic sanctions. The US is in no way entitled to any support - that's what democracy is all about.

A freedom loving country, setting great stock in being the model of democracy, propagating itself to actually BE the "free world", is not acting very democratically outside its own boundaries. I find that......a bit inconsistent.

Corio

on Apr 29, 2004

...And then starting a massive smear-campaign against the very institution where they lost the vote... Talk about sore losers...

messybuu

on Apr 29, 2004

Once again: A vote in the UN is just that - a vote. Political pressure, lobbying is of course happening before any vote. And I see nothing wrong with that. It's all part of politics. France and Germany didn't "withhold" something the US needed. They voted. The US should respect the outcome of that vote, instead of cranking up the propaganda machine and threaten them with economic sanctions. The US is in no way entitled to any support - that's what democracy is all about.

But Germany is entitled to military support from the U.S.? Also, they voted that way in an attempt to force the U.S. to go against its people. Hardly sounds pro-democracy to me.

Corio

on Apr 29, 2004

They voted that way because they didn't think the war was right. How the US thought wasn't/isn't relevant. Not everything revolves around the US you know.

And no, I do not think Germany is entitled to ANY support from the US. It's the reason they pulled out that bothers me. They did that solely because of the German vote.

From my previous link: 'We are doing this for one reason only: to harm the German economy'.

The whole thing boils down to this: The US does not respect the international community. As stated in several blogs here, why should the US care what others think?
I think that pretty much sums up the US sentiment on foreign policy. So trash the UN, nullify international agreements and go it alone. But for christ sake, stop whining about it like a spoiled child when others don't follow and US support is dwindling!

mikimouse

on Apr 29, 2004

"Also, they voted that way in an attempt to force the U.S. to go against its people"
I think flying saucers are picking this commenter up in the middle of the night. And also that Kennedy was shot my a u-turn bullet.

messybuu

on Apr 29, 2004

And no, I do not think Germany is entitled to ANY support from the US. It's the reason they pulled out that bothers me. They did that solely because of the German vote.

And that's what bothers me about France and Germany. They did what they did because of the war. And I mean this: "France and the other 14 council members voted unanimously last year to allow the US exemption from the court. But yesterday France, and Germany - which was not on the council last year - sent a protest to Washington by abstaining in the vote. Syria also abstained."

mikimouse

on Apr 29, 2004

gee from what I recall the US was using threats to the countries with the nerve to oppose the US exemption from war crimes. They've committed some in their time. Everyone should be accountable to international law. Everyone.

Welcome Guest! Please take the time to register with us.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:

Richer content, access to many features that are disabled for guests like commenting on the forums.
Access to a great community, with a massive database of many, many areas of interest.
Access to contests & subscription offers like exclusive emails.
It's simple, and FREE!