Spain vs America

[Darth Wong]

There are two interesting parallels between what happened to Spain and what happened to America, yet there was a vastly different reaction:

AMERICA: attacked by Al-Quaeda.
SPAIN: attacked by Al-Quaeda.

AMERICA: the government tried to blame old enemy (Iraq).
SPAIN: the government tried to blame old enemy (ETA).

AMERICA: people trusted the government, went to war, and angrily denounced objectors, even in other countries.
SPAIN: nobody believed the government.

AMERICA: people continue to support the government, even after the extent of its deception and its cost in American lives has been made clear.
SPAIN: people overwhelmingly turned on the government and booted them out of office.

Interesting, isn't it? I remember during the buildup to the Iraq war, many people were saying "you don't live here; if it happened to you, you would understand".

[theski]

Darth wong wrote

Interesting, isn't it? I remember during the buildup to the Iraq war, many people were saying "you don't live here; if it happened to you, you would understand".

This is the only part I don't agree with, if you think the 2 attacks are of equal weight.

There was a huge loss of life difference and economic difference.. and Spain has a much longer history of terror than does the US.. So IMHO the shock to the country was greater here than in Spain..

[theski]

no edit button... damm fingers..

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

This is the only part I don't agree with, if you think the 2 attacks are of equal weight.

There was a huge loss of life difference and economic difference.. and Spain has a much longer history of terror than does the US.. So IMHO the shock to the country was greater here than in Spain..

Spain's experience with terrorism was limited to a car bombing here and a shooting there. No more traumatic than abortion clinic shootings or the Oklahoma city bombing here. And once casualities reach 4 digits, does the difference between 1200 and 3000 people killed really matter?

[theski]

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote

Spain's experience with terrorism was limited to a car bombing here and a shooting there. No more traumatic than abortion clinic shootings or the Oklahoma city bombing here. And once casualities reach 4 digits, does the difference between 1200 and 3000 people killed really matter?

Well if I'm not reading this wrong...

MADRID, Spain - Authorities lowered the death toll from the Madrid bombings to 190 from 202 on Tuesday, and news reports said Spanish police warned European intelligence services that some suspects in the attacks may have fled.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4502950/

VRS

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Less than three weeks before the first anniversary of the September 11 attacks, New York is still unsure how many people were killed at the World Trade Center that day.

The city's police department now counts 2,807 victims in Lower Manhattan

190-2807 thats quite a difference......

and Thats not counting this.....

IT WAS an unprecedented shock. The human cost of the terrorist attacks on America is clear for all to see: lives lost, people injured, families bereaved, a nation suddenly made to feel vulnerable. More easily forgotten are those whose livelihoods depended on the thriving financial centre of New York that the twin towers dominated. Thousands of jobs have been lost and businesses closed. Many other businesses still totter on the brink of bankruptcy, as financial firms move many of their operations away from lower Manhattan. Local demand for pizza deliveries, dry cleaning and dozens of other services has dropped off. For the individuals directly affected, the catastrophe was huge. Working out the impact on the American economy as a whole, though, is far more complicated: partly because of the unprecedented nature of the events a year ago, and partly because of the point in the economic cycle at which they happened.

September 11th last year was such a black day that it is hard now to remember the global economic mood on September 10th. It was gloomy. Stockmarkets around the world fell sharply that day: Japan’s Nikkei 225 index, for example, dropped by 3.1% to a 17-year low. And the falls were cumulative. By September 10th, America’s Dow Jones Industrial Average had fallen by 10% since the beginning of 2001; the more broadly-based Standard & Poor's index was down by almost 20%. It was a similar pattern in Europe: London’s FTSE 100 index slid below 5,000 for the first time in three years.

Of course, in the initial aftermath of the terrorist attacks, the world’s stockmarkets plunged still further. Economists were unanimous: the events in New York and Washington delivered an enormous blow to confidence. Airlines were on the brink of collapse as passengers vanished, afraid to fly. American retail sales virtually dried up in the days after the attacks as people stayed at home, glued to their televisions.

economic impact

So still to me.. Its not the same

[Howedar]

AMERICA: the government tried to blame old enemy (Iraq).
SPAIN: the government tried to blame old enemy (ETA).

The US government didn't really try to blame Iraq for several months (until into the Afghanistan campaign) and never made the lie nearly as blatant as Spain did. The US said "there are ties" and Spain said "They did it!!!".

I think the time and magnitude difference changes the situation quite a bit. There are definately parallels though. We'll only know the true extent of that come November.

[CJvR]

AMERICA: the government tried to blame old enemy (Iraq).
SPAIN: the government tried to blame old enemy (ETA).

The US blamed Osama's A-Q not Iraq, that's why you you had the Afghanistan campaign.

AMERICA: people trusted the government, went to war, and angrily denounced objectors, even in other countries.
SPAIN: nobody believed the government.

No one of any importance objected to the Afghanistan campaign.

AMERICA: people continue to support the government, even after the extent of its deception and its cost in American lives has been made clear.
SPAIN: people overwhelmingly turned on the government and booted them out of office.

The US had plenty of bones to pick with Saddam even if he had never had anything to do with international terrorism.

The US hoisted the red white & blue, the Spanish hoisted only the white.

[Darth Wong]

AMERICA: the government tried to blame old enemy (Iraq).
SPAIN: the government tried to blame old enemy (ETA).

The US blamed Osama's A-Q not Iraq, that's why you you had the Afghanistan campaign.

Do you really need that list of quotes showing American government officials tying 9-11 to Iraq?

AMERICA: people trusted the government, went to war, and angrily denounced objectors, even in other countries.
SPAIN: nobody believed the government.

No one of any importance objected to the Afghanistan campaign.

News flash: when I wrote "Iraq", I meant "Iraq", not "Afghanistan". This isn't complicated.

AMERICA: people continue to support the government, even after the extent of its deception and its cost in American lives has been made clear.
SPAIN: people overwhelmingly turned on the government and booted them out of office.

The US had plenty of bones to pick with Saddam even if he had never had anything to do with international terrorism.

Thank you for demonstrating the truth of what I said.

The US hoisted the red white & blue, the Spanish hoisted only the white.

Thank you again. The attitude is clear.

[Howedar]

Fortunately, not every American shares it. I don't know what the proportions are, they might even be a strong majority. Again, we'll see in November.

[Rakuseki]

Do you really need that list of quotes showing American government officials tying 9-11 to Iraq?

Yes, not because I disbelieve it, it's just a good resource to have.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

*snip*

The 1200 casualties number that stuck in my mind must have included wounded, then. In any case, the difference in magnitude doesn't affect the point.

[Master of Ossus]

*snip*

The 1200 casualties number that stuck in my mind must have included wounded, then. In any case, the difference in magnitude doesn't affect the point.

You're right. The World Trade Center and the Pentagon are both massively more visible targets than a train station in a working-class area of Madrid.

[theski]

Arthur_Tuxedo wrote

In any case, the difference in magnitude doesn't affect the point.

Bullshit.... it matters a whole bunch... maybe it doesn't to you personally, but it did to the country as a whole....

[The Albino Raven]

Bullshit.... it matters a whole bunch... maybe it doesn't to you personally, but it did to the country as a whole....

The magnitude truly doesn't have an effect. More people die in gun violence, car accidents, from heart attacks, ,etc. than did on 9/11. It was the fact that it was an attack on a secure place. The idea of terrorism is what makes it scary, not the numbers of dead.

[Glocksman]

Bullshit.... it matters a whole bunch... maybe it doesn't to you personally, but it did to the country as a whole....

The magnitude truly doesn't have an effect. More people die in gun violence, car accidents, from heart attacks, ,etc. than did on 9/11. It was the fact that it was an attack on a secure place. The idea of terrorism is what makes it scary, not the numbers of dead.

Bullshit.

Several thousand dead from a single strike had much more of an effect on the US both from a psychological and political standpoint than either the OKC bombing or the earlier WTC truck bomb attack did.

If the political, cultural, and psychological effects been the same, we would have had the full blown USA PATRIOT (God, I hate that acronym) back in the mid-1990's instead of the watered down version that Congress finally wound up passing after long debate.

[Master of Ossus]

Bullshit.... it matters a whole bunch... maybe it doesn't to you personally, but it did to the country as a whole....

The magnitude truly doesn't have an effect. More people die in gun violence, car accidents, from heart attacks, ,etc. than did on 9/11. It was the fact that it was an attack on a secure place. The idea of terrorism is what makes it scary, not the numbers of dead.

Bullshit. People spend about the same amount of time worrying different ways of accidental death as the square of the number of victims in an average incident times the number of incidents. For example, people spend about the same amount of time worrying about plane crashes as car accidents. When you square the number of victims in an average plance crash and add them all together, you get about the same number as if you do the same thing with car accidents. The attack on the WTC caused about 3000 deaths, with another few hundred at the Pentagon and Pennsylvania. Honestly, it takes a lot of car accidents to get up to about 3000^2, which is part of why it's created such an impact. By contrast, the attack on Madrid was of only slightly greater magnitude than major aviation disasters. 200^2<3000^2.

[CJvR]

Do you really need that list of quotes showing American government officials tying 9-11 to Iraq?

Then why the Afghanistan detour if the US thought it was Saddam's work? If the US had been as sure as Aznar seemed why wasn't Iraq #1 on the hit list?

News flash: when I wrote "Iraq", I meant "Iraq", not "Afghanistan". This isn't complicated.

No but your reasoning is rather strange, the US blamed A-Q and invaded Afghanistan to get them, only after that did it turn on Iraq with a case based more on Saddam being scum in general and one of the usual suspects.

Thank you again. The attitude is clear.

YAQW.
The Spanish bombing was a huge success for A-Q even if it was the cooperation of Spanish themselves who set up the situation to be a sure victory for A-Q (provided the bombs went off).

[Vympel]

Then why the Afghanistan detour if the US thought it was Saddam's work? If the US had been as sure as Aznar seemed why wasn't Iraq #1 on the hit list?

Where did Mike say "the US *believed* what it was saying"?

No but your reasoning is rather strange, the US blamed A-Q and invaded Afghanistan to get them, only after that did it turn on Iraq with a case based more on Saddam being scum in general and one of the usual suspects.

Historical revisionism alert. The accusations made against Iraq were as specific as they were false. The claims were as follows:

- Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
- We cannot allow Iraq to give these weapons of mass destruction to terrorists
- We believe he will give weapons to terrorists because Iraq supports terrorism, and "you can't distinguish between Iraq and Al Qaeda" (actual quote).

[CJvR]

Historical revisionism alert. The accusations made against Iraq were as specific as they were false. The claims were as follows:

- Iraq has weapons of mass destruction
- We cannot allow Iraq to give these weapons of mass destruction to terrorists
- We believe he will give weapons to terrorists because Iraq supports terrorism, and "you can't distinguish between Iraq and Al Qaeda" (actual quote).

Iraq was strongly suspected of having WMD, over a decade of of Iraqi obstructionism to inspections certainly fueled that fire. That the WMD issue was given such a high profile in the justification of the war is a good indication that the US & UK both belived in it - otherwise they would have found an other issue to use and avioded the anoying WMD debate currently underway.
Iraq did support terrorism although it was more of an arabic PR campaign than a serious effort to do damage. Saddam IIRC provided economical support to the families of Palestinian suicidebombs.
Although I seriously doubt even Saddam would be crazy enough to give WMDs to maniacs quite likely to use them.

[Thinkmarble]

Iraq was strongly suspected of having WMD, over a decade of of Iraqi obstructionism to inspections certainly fueled that fire.

Please proof that Iraq obstructed the inspections.
I woudl suggest doing so by linking to reports of the inspection teams or interviews with Blix.
Not soundbyte, please.

[theski]

Thinkmarble wrote

Please proof that Iraq obstructed the inspections.
I woudl suggest doing so by linking to reports of the inspection teams or interviews with Blix.
Not soundbyte

http://www.number-10.gov.uk/output/Page277.asp

Iraqi obstruction of UN weapons inspection teams


firing warning shots in the air to prevent IAEA inspectors from intercepting nuclear related equipment (June 1991);
keeping IAEA inspectors in a car park for 4 days and refusing to allow them to leave with incriminating documents on Iraq's nuclear weapons programme (September 1991);
announcing that UN monitoring and verification plans were "unlawful" (October 1991);
refusing UNSCOM inspectors access to the Ministry of Agriculture. Threats were made to inspectors who remained on watch outside the building. The inspection team had reliable evidence that the site contained archives related to proscribed activities;
In 1991-2 Iraq objected to UNSCOM using its own helicopters and choosing its own flight plans. In January 1993 it refused to allow UNSCOM the use of its own aircraft to fly into Iraq;
refusing to allow UNSCOM to install remote-controlled monitoring cameras at two key missile sites (June-July 1993);
repeatedly denying access to inspection teams (1991- December 1998);
interfering with UNSCOM's helicopter operations, threatening the safety of the aircraft and their crews (June 1997);
demanding the end of U2 overflights and the withdrawal of US UNSCOM staff (October 1997);
destroying documentary evidence of WMD programmes (September 1997).



Obstruction

8. Iraq denied that it had pursued a biological weapons programme until July 1995.
In July 1995, Iraq acknowledged that biological agents had been produced on an industrial scale at Al-Hakam. Following the defection in August 1995 of Hussein Kamel, Saddam's son-in-law and former Director of the Military Industrialisation Commission, Iraq released over 2 million documents relating to its WMD programmes and acknowledged that it had pursued a biological programme that led to the deployment of actual weapons. Iraq admitted producing 183 biological weapons with a reserve of agent to fill considerably more.

and

U.N. Urges Iraq To End Standoff
By John M. Goshko
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, January 15, 1998; Page A25


UNITED NATIONS, Jan. 14—The Security Council today condemned Iraq's latest obstruction of U.N. weapons inspections and called on Iraqi President Saddam Hussein to halt the confrontation that has brought Baghdad and the United Nations to the brink of renewed crisis.

post story

and

Iraqi Obstruction and U.S. Political Will: Throughout 1996, Iraq repeatedly obstructed UNSCOM inspections. In March, June, and July, inspectors were harassed and denied timely access to facilities. In several cases, the delays apparently permitted the Iraqis to destroy documents and remove proscribed equipment. In July, UN inspectors saw what probably were some of Iraq's remaining operational SCUD missiles being wheeled out of a facility they were barred from entering. And in November, Iraq prevented UNSCOM from taking the remnants of destroyed SCUD rocket motors out of the country for examination to determine whether Iraq is trying to pass off inferior, locally produced SCUD rocket motors, which it unilaterally destroyed, as the original motors from Soviet-built SCUDs (UNSCOM fears that the Soviet SCUD motors may still be at large in operational missiles). This issue remains unresolved, and UNSCOM chairman Ambassador Rolf Ekeus is expected to meet with Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz in February to once again discuss this matter.

more stuff

[Keevan_Colton]

Did you miss the part "reports of the inspection teams or interviews with Blix" and misread "not soundbites" as "soundbites please"?

[Sharp-kun]

- We believe he will give weapons to terrorists because Iraq supports terrorism, and "you can't distinguish between Iraq and Al Qaeda" (actual quote).

The Al Qaeda link was BS, though he did support terrorists. He gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

The Al Qaeda link was BS, though he did support terrorists. He gave money to Palestinian suicide bombers.

He gave money to the families of suicide bombers who had already blown themselves up. Not the same thing at all.

[HemlockGrey]

theski, all the links who posted are from the 90's. The most recent inspections, if you might recall, occured in 2002.