We are on the cusp of WWIII. There is nothing humorous about this situation. Democratic elections are now being dictated by terrorist attacks. Furthermore, we are being implicity blamed for these attacks. Call it handwringing all you want. That is the reality.
Are you honestly suggesting that as a voter, I should NOT vote for a certain candidate because I think it MIGHT cause terrorists to think they've won a tactical victory?
Isn't that a form of surrender in and of itself?
The Popular Party in Spain engaged in a war it strongly believed was right and proper but that a majority of voters did not. The voters were ready to forgive them, but then they bungled the handling of the recent terrorist attacks, and a certain percentage of voters--5% or so--decided they'd lost confidence in their leadership, and voted for a change.
I find it a disappointment since I believe with all my heart and soul that Iraq was the right war at the right time for the right reasons, all the way across the board, and do not believe we have been either lied to or that our leaders are fools or incompetents. However, in Spain at least, the people have spoken. Now we should be looking for ways to work with and cooperate with their new government, not declaring them Quislings five minutes after they've taken office.
In other words, calm down and focus on what's important. We have a new government in Spain. Its people have spoken in the peaceful, democratic traditions that make the West great. That, in the end, is more important than the fact that the Al Qaeda scum probably are snickering at their minor victory.
Will there be more terror attacks around the time of elections as a result of this? If so, then it will soon become obvious to thinking people everywhere that this is what is happening, and the Spaniards themselves may feel like fools.
Let democracy work, Ralph. It's the worst system except for all the others, and if we believe in it, then we must support its legitimately-elected leaders as best we can during times of crisis.
That the governments of every Western democracy begin beefing up security like crazy as elections draw near, as a result of the lessons learned so recently in Spain.
Have faith. The West will persevere, because we may have our unique vulnerabilities, but we are stronger, and we are better.
Regardless of whether or not the election was swayed by the terrorist attacks, al qaeda will view this as a success. Expect more of the same. Furthermore, we are being implicitly blamed for this attack. I really don't care what the socialists do at this point. Any failure will be blamed on the US. We need to be very careful at this point. We should probably withdraw from the summer Olympics as I don't see how we can keep our citizens safe in Europe. If they are chanting OBL at Mexican soccer games, you can expect far worse in Greece. Especially after these attacks. Things are not looking good Dean. That is the reality.
Dean: "Its people have spoken in the peaceful, democratic traditions that make the West great. That, in the end, is more important than the fact that the Al Qaeda scum probably are snickering at their minor victory.
Well said, Dean.
And they haven't completely ruled out being in Iraq, which I think most people miss. Zapatero said "I have said clearly in recent months that, unless there is a change in that the United Nations take control and the occupiers give up political control, the Spanish troops will come back, and the limit for their presence there is June 30."
This is something that I think a lot of people misunderstand. Opposing the US/UK invasion Iraq is not the same as opposing the fight against terrorism, it's an opposition to what many regard as a flawed approach. You may not agree with that, but at least take comfort that almost everyone agrees with the aims.
If the UN took control of the Iraq occupation, I'd hope that my government, which opposed the invasion, would commit troops and resources. Similarily, if there are other actions that the global community can agree are effective against the terrorists, then I hope we perform them, and damn any risk of retaliation from terrorists.
PS: The rational thing to to would have been to delay the elections until a proper investigation could have been made and cooler heads could have prevailed.
"If the UN took control of the Iraq occupation, I'd hope that my government, which opposed the invasion, would commit troops and resources."
Yes. Because an organization dominated by thieves and thugs directing a body of gullible fellow travelers is definitely my first choice for important matters. I mean, who can argue with success? There's Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, East Timor. With a record like that who wouldn't want the UN?
"The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio Monday.
"You can't organise a war on the basis of lies," he said.
"Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," he said.
and of course Romano Prodi of the EU:
"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper.
OK, Dean, we gave them a chance. I wouldn't say that it's looking good.
Note that Prodi categorically rejects the idea of using force against any terorrists. Of course, he's merely a bigshot in the EU, not the new Spanish government.
Obviously, only partisans who don't care about the truth, decency, or fairness call people "liars" or "incompetents" when "mistaken" is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
That said, partisanship is a part of politics, and if you take brave and principled risks, as Aznar did, then you know that the barracudas on the other side may tear you apart. Because to some people, viciousness is their idea of "fun," or "just how the game is played."
Sad, but true.
That said, I re-iterate: the people have spoken, and the new government has said that it intends to fight terrorism. They deserve a chance to prove it before being labeled failures.
What did we win with the policies that provided support for these people? Freedom for eastern europeans among many others and the end to the biggest threat to human rights in the history of civilization.
What did the UN win with it's policies? Nothing.
Which one of us is having a hard time with perspective?
And putting Aristide in that group is pure comedy.
I think all UN responses to crises have boiled down to:
1) calling an American initiative "UN forces" (South Korea, Iraq the first time around)
2) nothing (everything else)
All (or more correctly, "both") UN policies have been US policies approved by the UN.
What did we win with the policies that provided support for these people? Freedom for eastern europeans...
And what have we done for the Eastern Europeans lately?
The Iraq war was seen by some of the poorest Eastern European nations (Bulgaria, Romania, etc.) as a way to turn their backs on Russia, build closer relationships with the U.S., and demonstrate their autonomy from the EU; not to mention their only hope of recouping some of the debt owed to them by Iraq.
I know that in Bulgaria, the Prime Minister is sitting on military expenses, military casualties, no particular sign of gratitude from the U.S. (for example, of all of those military contracts that were so famously available only to coalition partners, Bulgaria got exactly none of them), and the final straw is that the U.S. is asking them to forgive Iraq's debt, which is equal to about 25% of Bulgaria's GDP. There's no way the PM's going to be reelected carrying this kind of baggage - and election results like Spain's are due to sweep all of Eastern Europe even without new acts of terrorism there.
Unless the U.S. is prepared to reward these Eastern European coalition allies with something more substantial than a thank-you in the State of the Union address, then the Iraq war is going to go down in history as the last pro-American action of these nations before they're swallowed up and completely absorbed by the EU.
"And what have we done for the Eastern Europeans lately?"
So because other events have ocurred since the effects of our earlier actions are somehow erased? People wonder why Americans are reluctant to engage for humanitarian reasons. Maybe it's because humanitarian accomplishments don't bring goodwill, but perversely cause recriminations.
I'm all for inviting the eastern europeans to join a "Free Trade of the Atlantic" organization, bewtween us and any stable democratic government in Europe (and similar agreements elsewhere). But otherwise your argument boils down to the idea that America is expected to bear all burdens for everyone.
Maor
many a true word spoken in jest etc. Why do Americans give out so much about the U.N. when the U.S. is the U.N. Or more correctly the U.N. has recently acted to rubberstamp U.S. decisions and (very occasionaly) acted to put a brake on some of the more outlandish U.S. foreign policy decisions. Face it no matter how much you, or anyone else, happen to think you're right, the fact that you are the world's only super power means that people will object to you on principle more than they would another similiar, but less powerful nation. And that is only right and proper.
But otherwise your argument boils down to the idea that America is expected to bear all burdens for everyone.
Um, no. My argument boils down to the idea that those countries who have acted as allies of America should be treated as such. How has Bulgaria been treated any better by the U.S. since the Iraq war than France or Russia? It hasn't.
Bulgaria and Romania are two of the bottom three Eastern European coutries on any economic index you care to choose. They could ill afford to send help to Iraq, but their leaders did anyway, despite fairly widespread popular opposition within their own countries. In return, we've awarded them no reconstruction contracts and asked them to give up any hope of reclaiming their debts owed by Iraq.
That's not just refusing to bear burdens, that's using other countries and then throwing them away; and that's the way to ensure that leaders in these countries who sacrificed to help America will be voted out of power and replaced by governments who will move these countries into complete Franco-German dependency.
"How has Bulgaria been treated any better by the U.S. since the Iraq war than France or Russia? It hasn't."
I think this is false. I know of nothing America has done to Bulgaria, other than the debt reduction (which it has asked of everyone). If they feel they can't forgive the debt in full they should explain why and forgive what they can.
America is paying for the vast majority of the reconstruction of Iraq. You act as if asking other countries to help support an emerging Democracy is somehow out of line.
The point about reconstruction contracts may have some merit. If Bulgaria did send troops to Iraq (are you sure the Bulgarians weren't in Afghanistan?) and was not considered part of the coalition, I think that would be wrong. But I don't know this for a fact, nor do I understand why they would be left out if they were a member of the coalition.
Regardless, the issue is mainly symbolic anyway. Only coalition partners are able to be GCs, but in such businesses most of the work is actually done by subcontractors. Since Bulgarian companies are perfectly able to compete for that business I don't see the effect as anything like what you imply.
If Bulgaria did send troops to Iraq (are you sure the Bulgarians weren't in Afghanistan?)
Absolutely. Bulgaria sent 500 troops to Iraq who have mostly been stationed at Kerbala - they lost five troops in the bombing there on the day after Christmas.
If they feel they can't forgive the debt in full they should explain why and forgive what they can.
They've already done this - the Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha personally visited the White House back in February of 2003 and received a commitment from Bush that the debt issue could be worked out. That commitment is not being honored (or if it is, then it's only being "honored" in a Clintonesque, word-twisting way in that Bulgaria is one of the first in line to receive nothing), and this failure is putting the PM in the position of having made a promise to his people that is now being unfulfilled.
And the reason they can't forgive the debt because they have no money. As I said, they're at the bottom of the European rankings economically. The average monthly salary in Bulgaria is about US$190. The Bulgarian government is having problems with troops refusing to be rotated into Iraq because the army can't afford to buy them equipment or pay them combat pay. Yes, America is paying for the bulk of the Iraq reconstruction, but Bulgaria is paying up to its maximum ability and beyond.
and was not considered part of the coalition, I think that would be wrong. But I don't know this for a fact, nor do I understand why they would be left out if they were a member of the coalition.
They were considered part of the coalition, and they were allowed to bid on the reconstruction contracts, they just weren't awarded any. Again, this was an issue in the PM's 2003 visit - he said to Bush that he was strongly interested in restoring the construction business ties that Bulgaria had in Iraq before the embargo (though there's no record that any U.S. promises were made on this point, unlike on the debt issue).
You act as if asking other countries to help support an emerging Democracy is somehow out of line.
Um, just what am I doing other than asking for help to support an emerging democracy? Bulgaria was a Soviet puppet state only fifteen years ago; and up until 2001 it had a government run by former Communist Party members. But this first-ever non-socialist government in Bulgaria is teetering: 23 of the original 140 ruling party members in parliament have defected from the party over the past year (taking it from a majority government to a minority one, which must rule by coalition); and local elections last October showed only 6% support for the Prime Minister's party. I'm not "implying" potential negative effects in the future, I'm stating that negative effects are already happening.
Bulgaria (and most particularly the Prime Minister), has been a loyal ally of the U.S. over the past couple of years - both on the UN Security Council (where they've held one of the temporary seats) and on the battlefield. The Prime Minister is rapidly losing popular support to the socialists, in large part because he made promises based on statements from George Bush that are now unfulfilled. This is not a hypothetical prediction - this one-time ally is indeed in the process of being turned against us, and we seem to be doing nothing to stop the process.
Why is asking for help for this emerging democracy out of line?
Your position now is that you expected a payoff for joining the coalition? Perhaps that's not how you see it, but that's how it comes across. If Bulgaria doesn't forgive the Iraqi debt, then they're in line just like everyone else. Somehow because we asked everyone to forgive the debt Iraqi payment becomes our responsibility? I don't see that at all.
You seem to be asking for economic aid. I've told you what I think is appropriate, which is a free-trade agreement. In the long run that's more valuable than any realistic amount of direct aid. But again we're back to my earlier point that somehow everyone feels America should be responsible for everthing. It's great that Bulgaria and others joined the coalition, but now you imply that because they did so America owes them something.
If you joined the coalition to get something you should have stayed home.
Your position now is that you expected a payoff for joining the coalition?
Did you read the link in my last reply? Here's a quote:
"It is quite reasonable that I raised Bush the question of the settlement of the Iraqi debt to Bulgaria. For 12 years we have been deprived due to the embargo. The President clearly and firmly stated that in a certain moment the countries having helped in the joint effort – and those are the countries from the European and Atlantic block, and those that have debts to them are to be in the first places to get their money back."
- February 26, 2003
What should Bulgaria have expected following this "clear and firm statement" from Bush?
But again we're back to my earlier point that somehow everyone feels America should be responsible for everthing.
For "everthing", no. For its own promises, yes.
The Bulgarian government took significant political, diplomatic, and financial risks (not to mention risking the lives of its soldiers) on behalf of the United States and on the direct and personal request of the U.S. president. Are you really saying it's owed nothing in return?
If you joined the coalition to get something you should have stayed home.
Don't be naive. Every nation pursues a foreign policy that's designed to advance its own interests. I thought only Kucinich supporters believed it should be otherwise. Even the U.S. wasn't in Iraq for purely altruistic reasons - it was there in order to neutralize a perceived threat to itself.
Your position seems to be that any promise of financial remuneration received before the war should be discounted because only mercenary scum would have accepted financial benefit from participating. If that's America's attitude towards its allies, then it will soon have no allies left.
If the U.S. can't raise a coalition without tricking financially desperate countries with false promises of debt resolution, then it should have gone into Iraq alone.
The comment on suspending the Spanish elections was wrong on several counts:
1.- There is not any legal support for that in the Spanish law. So, postponing the election was clearly ilegal.
2.- Except for the spontaneous complaints of Spanish people about the government manipulation on the news about the authors of the Madrid massacre, there was a completely calm social environment, or at least, as calm as it could be after 200 deaths in a terrorist act.
3.- It is wrong to asume that all what happened was the efect of the terrorist attack. The opinion polls showed a gap between PP and PSOE that was closing. The government misshandling of the investigation was the final drop.
4.- It is the ex-goverment who has not accepted the elections results and tries to picture an state of turmoil. They have shown themselves as absolutely incapable of autocriticism (those who don't learn from their mistakes...)
5.- It is to early to judge the new goverment, but it's not too late to say that last one gave us a suffocating political environment.
"Don't be naive. Every nation pursues a foreign policy that's designed to advance its own interests. I thought only Kucinich supporters believed it should be otherwise"
If that's how you want to play it, fine. When Bulgaria can offer something we need have them call. Until then, pound sand.
"Your position seems to be that any promise of financial remuneration received before the war should be discounted because only mercenary scum would have accepted financial benefit from participating"
I'm saying asking for voluntary debt reduction from everyone is perfectly acceptable, and following up that you are complaining about nothing. It's Bulgaria's decision. If they don't want to do it they should decide not to. End of problem.
This is like me complaining endlessly that some charity sent me a donation request. Throw the request in the garbage and quit bitching about it.
If only we had Bin Laden's neck handy at the moment.
We are on the cusp of WWIII. There is nothing humorous about this situation. Democratic elections are now being dictated by terrorist attacks. Furthermore, we are being implicity blamed for these attacks. Call it handwringing all you want. That is the reality.
Okay look Ralph, I have to ask my question again:
Are you honestly suggesting that as a voter, I should NOT vote for a certain candidate because I think it MIGHT cause terrorists to think they've won a tactical victory?
Isn't that a form of surrender in and of itself?
The Popular Party in Spain engaged in a war it strongly believed was right and proper but that a majority of voters did not. The voters were ready to forgive them, but then they bungled the handling of the recent terrorist attacks, and a certain percentage of voters--5% or so--decided they'd lost confidence in their leadership, and voted for a change.
I find it a disappointment since I believe with all my heart and soul that Iraq was the right war at the right time for the right reasons, all the way across the board, and do not believe we have been either lied to or that our leaders are fools or incompetents. However, in Spain at least, the people have spoken. Now we should be looking for ways to work with and cooperate with their new government, not declaring them Quislings five minutes after they've taken office.
In other words, calm down and focus on what's important. We have a new government in Spain. Its people have spoken in the peaceful, democratic traditions that make the West great. That, in the end, is more important than the fact that the Al Qaeda scum probably are snickering at their minor victory.
Will there be more terror attacks around the time of elections as a result of this? If so, then it will soon become obvious to thinking people everywhere that this is what is happening, and the Spaniards themselves may feel like fools.
Let democracy work, Ralph. It's the worst system except for all the others, and if we believe in it, then we must support its legitimately-elected leaders as best we can during times of crisis.
By the way, you know what else I'll bet?
That the governments of every Western democracy begin beefing up security like crazy as elections draw near, as a result of the lessons learned so recently in Spain.
Have faith. The West will persevere, because we may have our unique vulnerabilities, but we are stronger, and we are better.
Regardless of whether or not the election was swayed by the terrorist attacks, al qaeda will view this as a success. Expect more of the same. Furthermore, we are being implicitly blamed for this attack. I really don't care what the socialists do at this point. Any failure will be blamed on the US. We need to be very careful at this point. We should probably withdraw from the summer Olympics as I don't see how we can keep our citizens safe in Europe. If they are chanting OBL at Mexican soccer games, you can expect far worse in Greece. Especially after these attacks. Things are not looking good Dean. That is the reality.
Dean: "Its people have spoken in the peaceful, democratic traditions that make the West great. That, in the end, is more important than the fact that the Al Qaeda scum probably are snickering at their minor victory.
Well said, Dean.
And they haven't completely ruled out being in Iraq, which I think most people miss. Zapatero said "I have said clearly in recent months that, unless there is a change in that the United Nations take control and the occupiers give up political control, the Spanish troops will come back, and the limit for their presence there is June 30."
This is something that I think a lot of people misunderstand. Opposing the US/UK invasion Iraq is not the same as opposing the fight against terrorism, it's an opposition to what many regard as a flawed approach. You may not agree with that, but at least take comfort that almost everyone agrees with the aims.
If the UN took control of the Iraq occupation, I'd hope that my government, which opposed the invasion, would commit troops and resources. Similarily, if there are other actions that the global community can agree are effective against the terrorists, then I hope we perform them, and damn any risk of retaliation from terrorists.
PS: The rational thing to to would have been to delay the elections until a proper investigation could have been made and cooler heads could have prevailed.
"If the UN took control of the Iraq occupation, I'd hope that my government, which opposed the invasion, would commit troops and resources."
Yes. Because an organization dominated by thieves and thugs directing a body of gullible fellow travelers is definitely my first choice for important matters. I mean, who can argue with success? There's Bosnia, Rwanda, Congo, East Timor. With a record like that who wouldn't want the UN?
"I mean, who can argue with success?"
Indeed. How's Aristide doing these days? Pinoche? Batista? Somoza? Pahlavi? Thieu?
It's easy to point fingers at failures. It's harder to imagine how to fix them.
And here's the new PM's first comments:
"The war in Iraq was a disaster, the occupation of Iraq is a disaster," Zapatero, 43, told Cadena Ser radio Monday.
"You can't organise a war on the basis of lies," he said.
"Wars such as that which has occurred in Iraq only allow hatred, violence and terror to proliferate," he said.
and of course Romano Prodi of the EU:
"It is clear that using force is not the answer to resolving the conflict with terrorists," Prodi said. "Terrorism is infinitely more powerful than a year ago," and all of Europe now feels threatened, he told the paper.
OK, Dean, we gave them a chance. I wouldn't say that it's looking good.
Note that Prodi categorically rejects the idea of using force against any terorrists. Of course, he's merely a bigshot in the EU, not the new Spanish government.
Obviously, only partisans who don't care about the truth, decency, or fairness call people "liars" or "incompetents" when "mistaken" is a perfectly reasonable explanation.
That said, partisanship is a part of politics, and if you take brave and principled risks, as Aznar did, then you know that the barracudas on the other side may tear you apart. Because to some people, viciousness is their idea of "fun," or "just how the game is played."
Sad, but true.
That said, I re-iterate: the people have spoken, and the new government has said that it intends to fight terrorism. They deserve a chance to prove it before being labeled failures.
I have that book of his World War II anti-Nazi cartoons "Dr. Seuss Goes To War". Excellent!
Stu
"Indeed. How's Aristide doing these days? Pinoche? Batista? Somoza? Pahlavi? Thieu?"
What did we win with the policies that provided support for these people? Freedom for eastern europeans among many others and the end to the biggest threat to human rights in the history of civilization.
What did the UN win with it's policies? Nothing.
Which one of us is having a hard time with perspective?
And putting Aristide in that group is pure comedy.
Stu,
What UN policies are you talking about?
I think all UN responses to crises have boiled down to:
1) calling an American initiative "UN forces" (South Korea, Iraq the first time around)
2) nothing (everything else)
All (or more correctly, "both") UN policies have been US policies approved by the UN.
Heck, even the ultimatum to Saddam never would have happened without the US demanding it.
What did we win with the policies that provided support for these people? Freedom for eastern europeans...
And what have we done for the Eastern Europeans lately?
The Iraq war was seen by some of the poorest Eastern European nations (Bulgaria, Romania, etc.) as a way to turn their backs on Russia, build closer relationships with the U.S., and demonstrate their autonomy from the EU; not to mention their only hope of recouping some of the debt owed to them by Iraq.
I know that in Bulgaria, the Prime Minister is sitting on military expenses, military casualties, no particular sign of gratitude from the U.S. (for example, of all of those military contracts that were so famously available only to coalition partners, Bulgaria got exactly none of them), and the final straw is that the U.S. is asking them to forgive Iraq's debt, which is equal to about 25% of Bulgaria's GDP. There's no way the PM's going to be reelected carrying this kind of baggage - and election results like Spain's are due to sweep all of Eastern Europe even without new acts of terrorism there.
Unless the U.S. is prepared to reward these Eastern European coalition allies with something more substantial than a thank-you in the State of the Union address, then the Iraq war is going to go down in history as the last pro-American action of these nations before they're swallowed up and completely absorbed by the EU.
"And what have we done for the Eastern Europeans lately?"
So because other events have ocurred since the effects of our earlier actions are somehow erased? People wonder why Americans are reluctant to engage for humanitarian reasons. Maybe it's because humanitarian accomplishments don't bring goodwill, but perversely cause recriminations.
I'm all for inviting the eastern europeans to join a "Free Trade of the Atlantic" organization, bewtween us and any stable democratic government in Europe (and similar agreements elsewhere). But otherwise your argument boils down to the idea that America is expected to bear all burdens for everyone.
Maor
many a true word spoken in jest etc. Why do Americans give out so much about the U.N. when the U.S. is the U.N. Or more correctly the U.N. has recently acted to rubberstamp U.S. decisions and (very occasionaly) acted to put a brake on some of the more outlandish U.S. foreign policy decisions. Face it no matter how much you, or anyone else, happen to think you're right, the fact that you are the world's only super power means that people will object to you on principle more than they would another similiar, but less powerful nation. And that is only right and proper.
But otherwise your argument boils down to the idea that America is expected to bear all burdens for everyone.
Um, no. My argument boils down to the idea that those countries who have acted as allies of America should be treated as such. How has Bulgaria been treated any better by the U.S. since the Iraq war than France or Russia? It hasn't.
Bulgaria and Romania are two of the bottom three Eastern European coutries on any economic index you care to choose. They could ill afford to send help to Iraq, but their leaders did anyway, despite fairly widespread popular opposition within their own countries. In return, we've awarded them no reconstruction contracts and asked them to give up any hope of reclaiming their debts owed by Iraq.
That's not just refusing to bear burdens, that's using other countries and then throwing them away; and that's the way to ensure that leaders in these countries who sacrificed to help America will be voted out of power and replaced by governments who will move these countries into complete Franco-German dependency.
"How has Bulgaria been treated any better by the U.S. since the Iraq war than France or Russia? It hasn't."
I think this is false. I know of nothing America has done to Bulgaria, other than the debt reduction (which it has asked of everyone). If they feel they can't forgive the debt in full they should explain why and forgive what they can.
America is paying for the vast majority of the reconstruction of Iraq. You act as if asking other countries to help support an emerging Democracy is somehow out of line.
The point about reconstruction contracts may have some merit. If Bulgaria did send troops to Iraq (are you sure the Bulgarians weren't in Afghanistan?) and was not considered part of the coalition, I think that would be wrong. But I don't know this for a fact, nor do I understand why they would be left out if they were a member of the coalition.
Regardless, the issue is mainly symbolic anyway. Only coalition partners are able to be GCs, but in such businesses most of the work is actually done by subcontractors. Since Bulgarian companies are perfectly able to compete for that business I don't see the effect as anything like what you imply.
If Bulgaria did send troops to Iraq (are you sure the Bulgarians weren't in Afghanistan?)
Absolutely. Bulgaria sent 500 troops to Iraq who have mostly been stationed at Kerbala - they lost five troops in the bombing there on the day after Christmas.
If they feel they can't forgive the debt in full they should explain why and forgive what they can.
They've already done this - the Prime Minister Simeon Saxe-Coburg Gotha personally visited the White House back in February of 2003 and received a commitment from Bush that the debt issue could be worked out. That commitment is not being honored (or if it is, then it's only being "honored" in a Clintonesque, word-twisting way in that Bulgaria is one of the first in line to receive nothing), and this failure is putting the PM in the position of having made a promise to his people that is now being unfulfilled.
And the reason they can't forgive the debt because they have no money. As I said, they're at the bottom of the European rankings economically. The average monthly salary in Bulgaria is about US$190. The Bulgarian government is having problems with troops refusing to be rotated into Iraq because the army can't afford to buy them equipment or pay them combat pay. Yes, America is paying for the bulk of the Iraq reconstruction, but Bulgaria is paying up to its maximum ability and beyond.
and was not considered part of the coalition, I think that would be wrong. But I don't know this for a fact, nor do I understand why they would be left out if they were a member of the coalition.
They were considered part of the coalition, and they were allowed to bid on the reconstruction contracts, they just weren't awarded any. Again, this was an issue in the PM's 2003 visit - he said to Bush that he was strongly interested in restoring the construction business ties that Bulgaria had in Iraq before the embargo (though there's no record that any U.S. promises were made on this point, unlike on the debt issue).
You act as if asking other countries to help support an emerging Democracy is somehow out of line.
Um, just what am I doing other than asking for help to support an emerging democracy? Bulgaria was a Soviet puppet state only fifteen years ago; and up until 2001 it had a government run by former Communist Party members. But this first-ever non-socialist government in Bulgaria is teetering: 23 of the original 140 ruling party members in parliament have defected from the party over the past year (taking it from a majority government to a minority one, which must rule by coalition); and local elections last October showed only 6% support for the Prime Minister's party. I'm not "implying" potential negative effects in the future, I'm stating that negative effects are already happening.
Bulgaria (and most particularly the Prime Minister), has been a loyal ally of the U.S. over the past couple of years - both on the UN Security Council (where they've held one of the temporary seats) and on the battlefield. The Prime Minister is rapidly losing popular support to the socialists, in large part because he made promises based on statements from George Bush that are now unfulfilled. This is not a hypothetical prediction - this one-time ally is indeed in the process of being turned against us, and we seem to be doing nothing to stop the process.
Why is asking for help for this emerging democracy out of line?
Alex,
Your position now is that you expected a payoff for joining the coalition? Perhaps that's not how you see it, but that's how it comes across. If Bulgaria doesn't forgive the Iraqi debt, then they're in line just like everyone else. Somehow because we asked everyone to forgive the debt Iraqi payment becomes our responsibility? I don't see that at all.
You seem to be asking for economic aid. I've told you what I think is appropriate, which is a free-trade agreement. In the long run that's more valuable than any realistic amount of direct aid. But again we're back to my earlier point that somehow everyone feels America should be responsible for everthing. It's great that Bulgaria and others joined the coalition, but now you imply that because they did so America owes them something.
If you joined the coalition to get something you should have stayed home.
Your position now is that you expected a payoff for joining the coalition?
Did you read the link in my last reply? Here's a quote:
"It is quite reasonable that I raised Bush the question of the settlement of the Iraqi debt to Bulgaria. For 12 years we have been deprived due to the embargo. The President clearly and firmly stated that in a certain moment the countries having helped in the joint effort – and those are the countries from the European and Atlantic block, and those that have debts to them are to be in the first places to get their money back."
- February 26, 2003
What should Bulgaria have expected following this "clear and firm statement" from Bush?
But again we're back to my earlier point that somehow everyone feels America should be responsible for everthing.
For "everthing", no. For its own promises, yes.
The Bulgarian government took significant political, diplomatic, and financial risks (not to mention risking the lives of its soldiers) on behalf of the United States and on the direct and personal request of the U.S. president. Are you really saying it's owed nothing in return?
If you joined the coalition to get something you should have stayed home.
Don't be naive. Every nation pursues a foreign policy that's designed to advance its own interests. I thought only Kucinich supporters believed it should be otherwise. Even the U.S. wasn't in Iraq for purely altruistic reasons - it was there in order to neutralize a perceived threat to itself.
Your position seems to be that any promise of financial remuneration received before the war should be discounted because only mercenary scum would have accepted financial benefit from participating. If that's America's attitude towards its allies, then it will soon have no allies left.
If the U.S. can't raise a coalition without tricking financially desperate countries with false promises of debt resolution, then it should have gone into Iraq alone.
The comment on suspending the Spanish elections was wrong on several counts:
1.- There is not any legal support for that in the Spanish law. So, postponing the election was clearly ilegal.
2.- Except for the spontaneous complaints of Spanish people about the government manipulation on the news about the authors of the Madrid massacre, there was a completely calm social environment, or at least, as calm as it could be after 200 deaths in a terrorist act.
3.- It is wrong to asume that all what happened was the efect of the terrorist attack. The opinion polls showed a gap between PP and PSOE that was closing. The government misshandling of the investigation was the final drop.
4.- It is the ex-goverment who has not accepted the elections results and tries to picture an state of turmoil. They have shown themselves as absolutely incapable of autocriticism (those who don't learn from their mistakes...)
5.- It is to early to judge the new goverment, but it's not too late to say that last one gave us a suffocating political environment.
Alex
"Don't be naive. Every nation pursues a foreign policy that's designed to advance its own interests. I thought only Kucinich supporters believed it should be otherwise"
If that's how you want to play it, fine. When Bulgaria can offer something we need have them call. Until then, pound sand.
"Your position seems to be that any promise of financial remuneration received before the war should be discounted because only mercenary scum would have accepted financial benefit from participating"
I'm saying asking for voluntary debt reduction from everyone is perfectly acceptable, and following up that you are complaining about nothing. It's Bulgaria's decision. If they don't want to do it they should decide not to. End of problem.
This is like me complaining endlessly that some charity sent me a donation request. Throw the request in the garbage and quit bitching about it.