If you don’t think that the lives of the two hundred Madrlie?os murdered by al-Qaeda count because the Spanish electorate turned against the PP, or that their deaths is payback for the sins of political regimes dead and buried, fine. Just don’t protest when al-Qaeda holds the US to the same abysmal moral standards.

About as right to say that the American government had 9/11 coming to it. (The expulsion of the Loyalists following independence, the Trail of Tears, the conquest of half of Mexico, Jim Crow, the suppression of Filipino independence … And that’s only the first century or so of American independence.)

I’m sure you’d agree that, in criticizing the historical past sins of a state, there’s nothing like massacring hundreds or thousands of innocent civilians.

I mean, Dali was a fascist, and Goya was Spain’s greatest artist.

Oh yes, Spain definitely had it coming. Almost as much as America, between the expulsion of Loyalists after independence, the Trail of Tears, Jim Crow, the crushing of Filipino independence, and so on. The indiscriminate mass murder of civilians completely uninvolved in these crimes is a perfectly legitimate response–don’t you think that the US deserved 9/11?

Idiot.

Nonetheless, the bombing gave US-Spanish relations a black eye, by painting the Spaniards as cowards. Yet, one piece of evidence isnt really shining through these red/white/blue lens filters is that the bombing displays the impotancy of the war on Iraq as a strike against the war on terror.

With Bush’s polarized outlook that all terrorists, all arabs, all rogue governments are on the same team; it is hard for americans to swallow the fact that the Morrocans have a completely unrelated organization.

Plus, Spain was founded on violence and oppression: the 30 years war, the colonization of america, the inquisition, fancisco franco’s fascist regime. Is it right to say that the Spanish government had it coming?

I mean, Dali was a fascist, and Goya was Spain’s greatest artist.

So what am i trying to say? Oh yeah. Provide me with more evidence: polls, opinions, articles, that would help me get to the bottom of this.
Cus, i’ll admit, the only reason i’m concerned about Spanish Politics is because of the bombing.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/living/2001881428_jdl18.html

RSN - Sorry for the confusion, I wasn’t trying to be accurate, just stating that their culture is way too old to change. I believe that even if you are able to install any other form of government, there will always be 3% of fanatics that will destroy any positive change in the region and punish whoever implemented it.

“We did it with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, to great positive effect. If we took action without permission in those cases, we can certainly do it again”

Afghanistan and Iraq were unable to control regions within their own borders! How do they represent a treat to surrounding nations like Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan did?

Terrorism you has no borders, it?s a moving target ? you can?t control it! You might be able to minimize it, but I believe that effort starts at home and with lots of ACCURATE intelligence.

Do you believe the US has done any progress in Iraq and Afghanistan? Are you better of? Or would have been better if the put the +$300 billion (I don?t not the exact figure) at home? I would like to see what you think about Iraq, please post your comments.

As to the ease of changing their societies, I have no doubt that a democracy based on market capitalism will be the model that appeals to those who don’t have it. The proof is in the masses of illegal immigrants clamoring to get into one.

And in terms of the right to change their society, the right was given us on 9/11. End of argument.

Pedro: De-colonization has been a disaster in some parts of the world. It is time to intervene in failed societies and put their house in order, simply because they’re a threat to the rest of us. Whether this is done by direct intervention, as in Afghanistan and Iraq, or by future UN trusteeship, is open for question. But we certainly have a right to do it, that is clear.

We did it with Nazi Germany and Imperial Japan, to great positive effect. If we took action without permission in those cases, we can certainly do it again.

Do you really think you can change a society that is +2000 years old? and why do you have the right to do so? why dont you ask yourself what America did to them to draw their terrorist attacks? why not change america?

the boldly radical and ‘innovative’ foreign policy initiative America has ever taken is furthering the cause of fascism in the societies you mention. It is incredibly naive to think that the political engineering of the US over a collection of societies–that it understands from ‘above’ and not from within–, will be any more successful than the multiple failures of social engineering of the XX century and of colonialism before.

(The patriarchal model of Western military intervention is certainly not immune to criticism, despite your best efforts to make it look like the biggest invention since the wheel.)

I favor an approach to foreign policy that–far from constructing the others as inferior simpletons in need for paternalistic intervention–strengthens the viability of supranational institutions for conflict resolution.

The point is quite simple, really. Authoritarian models don’t work and the rise and triumph of the democratic model of nationhood is a testament to this. By extension, authoritarian models of international policy will not work. We don’t need a supranational dictator by the glorious name of USA, but rather a democracy of nations (however imperfect) or something of that sort. I’m absolutely convinced that the ideal such institution would have little to do with the current UN, and I am willing to take strong shots at the latter, but I am not willing to submit to the belief that it is the US that ought to take it upon itself to dictate to the world how it ought to govern itself locally.