Don’t get me wrong, I’m not trying to castigate Americans in any any way, certainly the rest of us can’t claim to be any better. I just think you guys would be a little less outraged about all of this if you could see it from the outside perspective too.
I never claimed otherwise. It’s my contention that in the face of the terrorist attacks Zapatero either should have changed his tune in regard to Iraq or the Spanish people should have bailed on him. I can understand the reasons for not supporting said war prior to the Madrid bombings. It was, honestly, a war that didn’t directly involve the Spanish. It was a war that possibly wasn’t even clearly in Spain’s best interests. After the attacks, that all changed. Al-Qaeda attacked Spain because they were in Iraq. That shows, clearly and demonstrably, that the terrorists considered Iraq to be a key part of the greater struggle against the “West.” Where before there was doubt as to whether or not it was in Spain’s interests to be involved, afterwards it should have been clear without any shadow of a doubt.
I can see where voting for some weak-willed hand-wringer might make sense (especially in a European country) prior to the attacks, but after them, it makes no sense at all. My surprise and disgust for Spain isn’t based on the fact that they wanted out before the attacks, but rather that they still didn’t “get it” afterwards.
Spain’s decision would be akin to America deciding to sign over the Pacific to Japan in response to the bombing of Pearl Harbor. It’s actually a pretty apt analogy, most Americans were opposed to our involvement in a war against Japan prior to the bombings, they felt that the world’s concerns were not our own. It took that attack to strike home to the American people that we don’t live in a bubble and the greater war at hand was our concern. The American people buckled down and did what was right, they committed to a war they knew would not be short nor easy (FDR never once sugar coated the fact that we were entering what would be a brutal, hard-fought war.)
I agree, but I also think a lot of us do. It is hard to pretend we wear the white hats that we mostly did in WWII and WWI. Too many incidents before, between and after to maintain that level of ignorance with credibility. There are very few countries that can afford to throw stones at the history and actions of other countries.
9/11 was a huge wake up for us. Most Americans never seem to understand how horrible terrorism was in the rest of the world. That was a Middle-East thing, or Irish things or maybe a European thing. Now we know it is an entire World thing. Collectively, it is still very new to us. Maybe you can give us a little more time to get use to it.
Jim
No, not at all. My first statement conveyed my thoughts on Spain, that being that Spain is an embarrassment, that it is poor, and that it is led by spineless men.
Spain is one of the poorer countries in Western Europe, a region of the world with mostly high per capita income states. Spain is led by a man who is almost overfilled with pride in his own cowardice.
I make these general observations not only after reflecting on Spain’s cowardice in the face of terrorist attacks, but also from previous feelings about Spain in general. I didn’t base my feelings about the Spanish on one person, or even a few people. I based it on my working knowledge (although not expert in level) of Spain, and its people and their political philosophies in general.
My second statement, was brought about because Nava tried to say she wasn’t speaking about Americans “generally” when she said we were running around like chickens with their heads cut off, but rather she was talking about specific Americans who had inconvenienced friends of hers within her company (or some other load of bull shit.) My response to that was, if she wasn’t speaking about Americans generally is, she should have fucking said that in the first place. But no, she was clearly speaking about Americans generally. If her reasons for doing so are because of a few managers in her company, then I explained that she shouldn’t judge an entire country just based on a few managers in her company.
For the record, I do not believe she was speaking in the specific. In the OFF-CHANCE that she WAS speaking in the specific, I was explaining that she shouldn’t extrapolate such feelings into generalized statements about America like she did. I believe she was speaking generally about America and was reflecting her smug sense of superiority that she feels Spain possesses (despite Spain not having been a great power since the 16th century, despite Spain being essentially an embarrassment of a country since long before the United States was even founded.)
Just to clarify my earlier post, this is a perfect example of the “us” and “them” thinking (with one’s bodily location in relation to early-21st-century nation-state borders as the defining condition), which so many are attached to, that saddens me. *“It didn’t happen to us”, * you say. Could someone from Connecticut say that, being from a different state? Or someone from France, being from a different continent? Or someone from Denver, being from a different altitude? (Actually, it’s misguided even on your terms, since the victims on 9-11 were “from” everywhere, even other nation-states).
I do recognize that much of the reactive policy is coordinated at the nation-state level, such as the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq. To the extent that Nava meant to poke “fun” at some of the reactions on that level, well, okay.
I think most humans have a particular issue that sends them back to their early adolescence (I think mine is religion, I try to keep it under control). For some in this thread it seems to be 9/11.
“You just don’t understand me! You all hate me!”. Facts be damned, we’re not going to get a little reading comprehension in the way of a good melodrama. See post no. 217.
This is one case where people are hugely overreacting, and whatever clarifications, explanations or excuses are offered will only lead to further shouting. It’s like some “really” want to believe that the rest of the world hates them.
Oh well.
Well, Martin, that’s your opinion. This may or may not come as a suprise to you, but other people view terrorism in a manner quite different from how Americans view it. You have to conceed that it is likely that our actions in the “GWoT” have encouraged further anti-Americanism in some quarters. Is this less or greater than the tactical gains made in Iraq? You don’t know, I don’t know, and Spain doesn’t know, but their population has apparently decided that their involvement in Iraq was not overall rational strategy for reducing the terrorist threat posed to Spain, so they’ve decided to bow-out from our misadventure in Iraq.
You could call them pussies if you wanted to, but apparently they would rather pursue what they view to be a rational set of steps to imrpove their outcome in the conflict, so I don’t really see the point. On a personal level, you can continue to be a prick to Nava, on the point, or just acknowledge that you can’t force the rest of the Western world to go along with all of our milirary endeavours, and leave it at trying to represent your nation on this international board in a positive light. That is, stop being a prick towards Nava and others.
USA! USA! USA! :rolleyes:
A question nonymouse, if you don’t mind. What about all the people in this thread who have presented the minority view? Do you consider them all the same?
Good god, it was six years ago and I’m willing to be that the overwhelming majority of people shitting themselves over Nava’s comments wasn’t directly affected by the attacks.
It happened; it was tragic. The sooner we, as a nation, move the fuck on and stop assuming that everyone in the world feels so sorry for our lost skyscrapers, the sooner we actually reduce the chance of more stupid attacks like 9/11. This smug self-importance makes me embarrassed to be American.
I don’t follow you. Could you be more specific?
See, what I don’t get, is how Nava’s post that set this off can be seen in anything less than a very creepy and disappointing light.
I am aware that terrorism happens in other countries. And I am also aware that the U.S. and its proxies have committed horrible misdeeds. But the thing is – when I hear that hundreds of children have been massacred in a Chechen/Russian incident, or that nerve gas was released on a Tokyo subway, or a bunch of nuns in El Salvador have been mowed down - I have never had any emotional response even close to bemusement. Ever.
Seen from 2007, do a lot of American responses in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attacks, both public and private, appear foolish and/or brutal? Of course. But we weren’t aware of what was happening at the time. And I seriously doubt that any nation on Earth would have been able to respond in, what is seen through the 2007 prism, much less than a comically ineffective fashion. Looked at in this hypothetical, wouldn’t most people say that, at the very least, it would be unseemly and in bad taste to laugh about Uruguayans hoarding toilet paper after 16 simultaneous car-bombs go off in downtown Montevideo? Or chuckle at those stupid Malaysians who bought up all those quad-color flags after that anthrax release in the HVAC systems at the Petronas Towers?
The simple truth is that the scale of the 9/11 attacks was unprecedented. Not the protracted body and/or money count over a decade or two. We’re talking two of the tallest buildings in the world completely destroyed and 3,000 people killed. In one day.
Regardless of the questionable taste of the inflammatory post, I think it is interesting to posit a world in which the initial response to such an unanticipated assault would be met by immediate and totally sober responses by all parties concerned.*
Nava, I don’t know you – you don’t know me. It’s just sad, is all.
- Actually, I’ve already been there. Its name is Singapore.
Jesus Christ, would you make up your mind? Do you hate Spain because they allowed a terrorist attack to alter their foreign policy, or because they didn’t allow a terrorist attack to alter their foreign policy? Take a few minutes to decide exactly what point you’re trying to make, and when you’ve worked that out, keep it to your fucking self, you jingoistic, half-witted piece of shit, because no one here is interested in the next execretion from your diseased excuse for a brain.
She was talking about her own country. It was obvious she was talking about her own country, the other Spaniards taking offense at what the Americans said.
My god. There are times when this board is an embarrassment to me, and this is one of them.
You’re getting better. That was a three-line zinger.
Thanks. You are, too. You actually made a good point earlier in this thread. Mark the calender, I’m pretty sure that’s a first for you.
Could you please point out which one was his good point? I think I missed it?
Thinking about the word “fun” for watching the whole thing develop:
I’m not so sure that it’s a terrible word for it. We all probably have a bit of rubbernecker in us, a bit of fascination with trainwrecks that is enhanced when we are close enough to know the players but not too close.
People, in general, seem to like emergencies. They like the exhilaration and the frenzy. People dying and things being destroyed, that’s secondary to the fascination.
There’s a reason people follow tragedies with a near religious fervor, and the reason is that they find it fun. The craziness, the drama, the hysteria.
I didn’t have a TV when 9/11 happened. I didn’t see most of the images. I wasn’t much of an observer of all of the events. But I know people who were absolutely glued to their sets, who knew all of the details down to the last bolt the same way we in the Harry Potter threads could rattle off the names of minor characters from Book 4.
So, no. I don’t think it’s devastating and shocking for someone to say they found the whole spastic commotion, overreactions aplenty, to be fun, or funny, or simply too compelling to turn away from because then you might miss something and where’s the fun in that?
Probably pointing out your one-sided view on what constitutes a “war.”
Just going from memory, but I do believe that the responses of most here have been characterized by some as jingoistic, knee-jerk and either over-the-top or an over reaction. And despite there being at least a few who could definitely be described as not holding this view point, your quotes in this thread are from post #175:
and then 200:
and finally, before my question, in 228:
I think that the first one is self-explanatory and where the feeling (probably only mine) comes from of all encompassing inclusiveness. The second seems to be making light of the more painful emotions of those in the majority of folks here. Last, seemingly that continues, especially by including the roll eyes smilie.
Now, I was just curious about your stance and I hope that helps make my query clearer. Thanks for taking the time to understand and help me understand the various opinions other than my own.