Do the spanish realize what they just voted for?

[member 5645]

Do the spanish realize what they just voted for??

http://channels.netscape.com/ns/new...3500002581078&dt=20040315135000&w=RTR&coview=

INTERVIEW-Spain's new priority is Europe, not U.S.-aide

BRUSSELS, March 15 (Reuters) - Spain's new priorities are to restore relations with core European allies, rethink its role in Iraq and leave strategic dialogue with the United States to the European Union, its likely future Socialist foreign minister said on Monday.

In a telephone interview with Reuters, Miguel Angel Moratinos, a former EU Middle East envoy, outlined an agenda in stark contrast to the U.S.-centred policy pursued by outgoing Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar, whose conservative Popular Party was swept aside in a shock election defeat on Sunday.
*snip*


"Of course, we want to have the best relationship with the U.S. administration, but we think the best strategic dialogue on an equal footing should be conducted at the level of U.S.-European relations, and not as Spain," he said.

So Spain is no longer making any decisions outside the realm of the EU and the UN? Am I the only one that feels as if they are now giving up a great deal of autonomy and sovereignty in this?
I understand wanting to restore better ties with your neighbors, but stating that you aren't going to be talking dialogue with others outside the guides of the EU? yikes.

 

[Zero]

I don't read it the same way as you do, obviously. Going through the EU gives Spain a stronger barganing position when dealing with the US, which can be seen as worth whatever very limited loss of autonomy it entails.

 

[Nereid]

phatmonky wrote: So Spain is no longer making any decisions outside the realm of the EU and the UN? Am I the only one that feels as if they are now giving up a great deal of autonomy and sovereignty in this?

There may be more to what Senor Moratinos said than your snip, but it's quite a leap to go from 'dialogue with the US through the EU' to conduct ALL foreign relations through the EU! After all, there's China, Latin America, India, ... In any case, at what size does it become a 'loss' of sovereignty to be part of a very powerful group cf a weak minnow? IIRC, Australia, under Johnie Howard, did everything to ingratiate himself with Dubya, only to be rewarded with the rough end of the pineapple (so to speak) in the recent trade talks. Of course, even joining 'the club' and abiding by its rules doesn't always work with the MBA from Texas - those illegal (per the WTO ruling) export tax subsidies still haven't been repealed.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Nereid
There may be more to what Senor Moratinos said than your snip, but it's quite a leap to go from 'dialogue with the US through the EU' to conduct ALL foreign relations through the EU! After all, there's China, Latin America, India, ... In any case, at what size does it become a 'loss' of sovereignty to be part of a very powerful group cf a weak minnow? IIRC, Australia, under Johnie Howard, did everything to ingratiate himself with Dubya, only to be rewarded with the rough end of the pineapple (so to speak) in the recent trade talks. Of course, even joining 'the club' and abiding by its rules doesn't always work with the MBA from Texas - those illegal (per the WTO ruling) export tax subsidies still haven't been repealed.

So you think this is simply Spain vs. the US. If it's about bargaining power, as zero claims, then why woudln't they use that same bargaining power for the rest of the countries? The answer is they certainl would use it for other countries. Between the socialist talk about military movements only under the UN, and now this, all in a day after the election, it is certainly a sign of things to come.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
So you think this is simply Spain vs. the US. If it's about bargaining power, as zero claims, then why woudln't they use that same bargaining power for the rest of the countries? The answer is they certainl would use it for other countries. Between the socialist talk about military movements only under the UN, and now this, all in a day after the election, it is certainly a sign of things to come.

Signs of paranoia, more like it...

What's your silly grudge against socialism? It works fine in the US...

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Signs of paranoia, more like it...

What's your silly grudge against socialism? It works fine in the US...

Capitalism with a dash of socialism. Don't make the mistake of thinking we are a socialist society.

This isn't a grudge against socialism, this is amazement that someone can be so happy to put such authority in the hands of others.

More signs of the new governments plans:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3513898.stm

to compromise over Spain's defence of its national interests - especially over its relative voting strength - for the sake of early agreement on the EU constitution

Atleast the previous government meant for Spain to have a strong hand in the EU.

to call for a new "international alliance" against terrorism, based on the authority of the United Nations, not "unilateral actions" by the US and UK.

And this is what REALLY irks, and worries, me. The UN has failed time and again to take action when action is unequestionably needed (I won't even mention R word...) Someone who is willing to blow up trains with themselves and pipebombs cannot be reasoned with. Someone who has no populous to be accountable to cannot be negotiated with. The UN, while I still think has it's place for humanitary aide, is all bark and no bite. The UN is without a doubt the wrong cooridor to go down for a fight against terrorism.

 

[kat]

After reading more and speaking to my dear Andalusian friend I've got some random thoughts on this.

The first is that it was not an overwhelming vote for the socialist, in fact they didn't get a majority and will have to put together a coalition. Maria seems to feel that the result is more of a result of a greater voter turnout because more people were out, about, aware and invigorated to vote because of the bombings but that overall she didn't get a sense that there was the massive change of mind that is being represented by the media. I don't know, I trust her opinion she's spent years overseeing elections for the U.N.

Memri has put up an interesting translation and commentary about the message from "al-queda" claiming responsibilty for the bombing, they seem to think it's a farce. http://memri.org/bin/latestnews.cgi?ID=IA16604

Maybe it's that I was raised a military brat, or maybe it's some other major (/sarc) character flaw..but it really irritates me that countries B**** and moan about the U.S. and particularly in this instance demand that they pull out there piddly 1,200 men and yet...you know...that if we started pulling out our servicemen stationed in their country ...and began to close our bases..they'd being crying and begging for us to stay. *really sick of the hypocrisy*

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by phatmonky
*SNIP
And this is what REALLY irks, and worries, me. The UN has failed time and again to take action when action is unequestionably needed (I won't even mention R word...) Someone who is willing to blow up trains with themselves and pipebombs cannot be reasoned with. Someone who has no populous to be accountable to cannot be negotiated with. The UN, while I still think has it's place for humanitary aide, is all bark and no bite. The UN is without a doubt the wrong cooridor to go down for a fight against terrorism.

Ah, the lot of the self-appointed global policeman ... is not a happy one, happy one!

I think I'm missing something, remind me again what's needed - militarily - to defeat 'terrorists'? H-bombs? "Heavy Divisions"? or humint, special forces units, etc?

And remind me again how thousands of troops in Iraq are defeating UBL?

Oh, and before I forget, why does the UN have 'no bark'?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
Signs of paranoia, more like it...

What's your silly grudge against socialism? It works fine in the US...

Socialism in the US!? Ok.. that's the first time I've heard someone say that..

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Nereid
1>Ah, the lot of the self-appointed global policeman ... is not a happy one, happy one!

2>I think I'm missing something, remind me again what's needed - militarily - to defeat 'terrorists'? H-bombs? "Heavy Divisions"? or humint, special forces units, etc?

3>And remind me again how thousands of troops in Iraq are defeating UBL?

4>Oh, and before I forget, why does the UN have 'no bark'?

1>I'm assuming this is somehow a line about the US being the police instead of the UN? I'm not sure what you think I'm unhappy about, but you'll have to clarify this for me to respond.
2>Why do you ask militarily? It depends on the campaign, and I fail to see how this is a relevant question. The fact is that if countries are willing to act together against terrorism, great. The problem with the UN is the amount of BS politics happening. When a group of people can't even decide that genocide is a real enough reason to do something, or billions of dollars of money goes missing for humanitarian aide, you have to wonder if this is the correct institution to be looking to aide your national security.
3>Iraq doesn't have anything to do with UBL. When did I say that? You should atleast be that aware.
4>Who said it has no bark? It has tons! It talks, and talk, and talks...

 

[pocebokli]

well you have the same thing there, only with a longer tradition
last time i checked, you were a federation, right?

So i guess Montana is just a cowardly little state hididng amongst others in your federation?

or is it a full-time member with all the rights it's reserved to? and you don't let it attack north korea on it's own? shame...

UN is something where eveyone (could have) has a word. Maybe it's not working as it is supposed to, but at least it's great goal to follow and it's also not working as bad as some of you would like to believe.

unlike your external politics, where only YOU have a word and force it unto other nations just to fatten you up.

that's why relatively small states group into EU and other stuff. So they don't have to take all the **** from big states led by stupid dictators or silly bible-thumping presidents, puppeted by smart corporations.

THAT's what I call hypocrisy
so THATs why everyone is *****ing about police thingy, man.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by Monique
Socialism in the US!? Ok.. that's the first time I've heard someone say that..

Socialism, when you get down to basics, is a situation where a society pools its resources so that no one has to do without those basic things that the society deems necesary for its health.

I am given to understand that Jesus was a big fan of it.

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by Zero
Socialism, when you get down to basics, is a situation where a society pools its resources so that no one has to do without those basic things that the society deems necesary for its health.

So again I say: US? Socialist? I guess everything is relative..

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Socialism, when you get down to basics, is a situation where a society pools its resources so that no one has to do without those basic things that the society deems necesary for its health.

I am given to understand that Jesus was a big fan of it.

stop inventing definitions.

Jesus was also in favor of helping those who help themselves. Not handouts.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique
So again I say: US? Socialist? I guess everything is relative..

It is all relative, or in this case, it's all Zero trying to make a point against me.
The US is most definitely capitalist. We simply have a set of government rules to keep competition alive. Even many of our government jobs are simply outsourced to private entities. Again I say, capitalism with a small dash of socialism.

 

[Zero]

Originally posted by phatmonky
stop inventing definitions.

Jesus was also in favor of helping those who help themselves. Not handouts.

Hmmmm...whatever, dude. Jesus was also in favor of Christians selling all their belongings and GIVING the money to the poor, not making the poor work for it. Funny how that works.

BTW, what invented definition are you talking about? That is a perfectly accurate description of socialism, AFAIK.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...whatever, dude. Jesus was also in favor of Christians selling all their belongings and GIVING the money to the poor, not making the poor work for it. Funny how that works.

BTW, what invented definition are you talking about? That is a perfectly accurate description of socialism, AFAIK.

Give a man fish...Teach a man to fish...

Socialism requires government interaction to accompolish the things you claim. Your definition can be accompolished multiple ways, including privately (as it is in many cases in the US)
Socialism is your definition AS WELL AS that pulling together being done through a top level government.
We have a few socialized systems in our country that are actually socialist by the fact that they are actual government entities. Unlike Europe our market is about as close to open capitalism as you can get without developing monopolies across the board. Our government is meant to keep capitalism alive (ironically), not interfere, not own.

 

[Zero]

So, my definition is generally true, in the broadest terms, correct?

 

[Monique]

Originally posted by phatmonky
It is all relative, or in this case, it's all Zero trying to make a point against me.
The US is most definitely capitalist. We simply have a set of government rules to keep competition alive. Even many of our government jobs are simply outsourced to private entities. Again I say, capitalism with a small dash of socialism.

I am with you on this one. There are so many things I could name, but just look at how much money the government spends on the education and healthcare of its citizens..

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Monique
I am with you on this one. There are so many things I could name, but just look at how much money the government spends on the education and healthcare of its citizens..

Not to mention the differences in how business is controlled. Our governments primary job is to actually promote competition. In the UK for instance it is illegal for stores to offer an item on sale for less than they bought it for in order to entice shoppers. Here, that is common practice. Or look at the recent proposal in England to nto allow stores over XXXX sq ft to be open on Sunday. That far more intrusion into private business than we prefer here in the US.

 

[member 5645]

Originally posted by Zero
So, my definition is generally true, in the broadest terms, correct?

But it's still incomplete, and none the less inaccurate to our society. That is unless you believe that ANY social service instantly makes you a socialist society. The fact is, many believe healthcare to be a guaranteed right, but our government has said that neither that nor food is.

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Zero
Hmmmm...whatever, dude. Jesus was also in favor of Christians selling all their belongings and GIVING the money to the poor, not making the poor work for it. Funny how that works.

BTW, what invented definition are you talking about? That is a perfectly accurate description of socialism, AFAIK.

Jesus had the absolutely unique luxury of being a diety. I'm not so fortunate. However, you can feel free to sell all your earthly belongings and become a monk.

But wait: if you were to do that now, would that overall increase or decrease the total amount of money you give to the poor in your lifetime?

 

[pocebokli]

well if there were no rich there would be no poor either because you'd loose something to compare with:-)

I think most of the euro countries guarantee healthcare and higher education relatively cheap or free, which in the US only middle to high class can afford (education).

and i think that education is one of the most important things that helps keeping the divide between da poor and da rich at a reasonable level

so that's my reason why US is not a socialist country:-)

 

[kat]

Originally posted by pocebokli
well if there were no rich there would be no poor either because you'd loose something to compare with:-)

I think most of the euro countries guarantee healthcare and higher education relatively cheap or free, which in the US only middle to high class can afford (education).

and i think that education is one of the most important things that helps keeping the divide between da poor and da rich at a reasonable level

Well, actually I think this is incorrect. I believe there is healthcare available for the poor in the U.S. and many programs to get the poor to college but..it's the middle class (lower middle maybe?) that struggles with health care and the cost of college because they make too much to be eligible for state and federal programs.

 

[Nereid]

Originally posted by phatmonky
I'm not going to continue. I think the facts are clear. Murder, car accidents, research investment, and unhealthy diets all play into the healthcare costs.

The one thing I have found that is fully to blame on the healthcare system is waiting times. It is insanely excessive, just as I had predicted, in the countries mentioned.

Oh, and 15% is 3 times 5% - I think that'll cover the 100% difference you were looking for.

Am not sure I follow all that you've said, but in summary it seems to be:
-> the unhealthy lifestyle in the US drives up health-care costs (guns, cars, obesity, etc); if these were accounted for (how?), then the far greater per-capita GDP spend on health would largely disappear
-> waiting times are an acceptable trade-off; i.e. $ for $ of per-capita GDP the average *health* of citizens of a nation improves for each day-for-day reduction in waiting times (for surgery of all kinds).

All of which leads to: how does one measure the cost-efficiency of health care?

More broadly, to the extent that phatmonky, Monique, kat, Russ (?), Nereid, etc have a choice, which country seems preferable, in terms of the health-care system?

For the avoidance of doubt on this last one, I'll take 'socialised medicine' (is that what it's called in the US?) thank you.

 

[FZ+]

Originally posted by russ_watters
Jesus had the absolutely unique luxury of being a diety. I'm not so fortunate. However, you can feel free to sell all your earthly belongings and become a monk.

But wait: if you were to do that now, would that overall increase or decrease the total amount of money you give to the poor in your lifetime?

The reference is regarding luxuries, not asking people to starve themselves to death. So yes, it would greatly increase the amount of money you give. You are presuming falsely that wealth linearly increases your ability to contribute.

 

[Njorl]

Originally posted by phatmonky
http://channels.netscape.com/ns/new...3500002581078&dt=20040315135000&w=RTR&coview=

INTERVIEW-Spain's new priority is Europe, not U.S.-aide



So Spain is no longer making any decisions outside the realm of the EU and the UN? Am I the only one that feels as if they are now giving up a great deal of autonomy and sovereignty in this?
I understand wanting to restore better ties with your neighbors, but stating that you aren't going to be talking dialogue with others outside the guides of the EU? yikes.

In 1789, several small autonomous entities began doing what Spain is doing. We now refer to them as the United States of America. Were the people of Delaware foolish for giving up their autonomy to make common cause with Virginia and New York? The people of Delaware certainly gave up more than the people of Spain are doing now.

Njorl