Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Do the spanish realize what they just voted for?

  1. Mar 15, 2004 #1
    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

    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.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 15, 2004
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 15, 2004 #2
    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.
     
  4. Mar 15, 2004 #3

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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always work with the MBA from Texas - those illegal (per the WTO ruling) export tax subsidies still haven't been repealed.
     
  5. Mar 15, 2004 #4
    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.
     
  6. Mar 15, 2004 #5
    Signs of paranoia, more like it...:wink:

    What's your silly grudge against socialism? It works fine in the US...
     
  7. Mar 15, 2004 #6
    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

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

    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.
     
  8. Mar 15, 2004 #7

    kat

    User Avatar

    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. The Alleged Al-Qa'ida Statement of Responsibility for the Madrid Bombings: Translation and Commentary

    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*
     
    Last edited: Mar 15, 2004
  9. Mar 15, 2004 #8

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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'?
     
  10. Mar 15, 2004 #9

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Socialism in the US!? Ok.. that's the first time I've heard someone say that..
     
  11. Mar 16, 2004 #10
    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........
     
  12. Mar 16, 2004 #11
    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.
     
  13. Mar 16, 2004 #12
    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.
     
  14. Mar 16, 2004 #13

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    So again I say: US? Socialist? I guess everything is relative..
     
  15. Mar 16, 2004 #14
    stop inventing definitions.

    Jesus was also in favor of helping those who help themselves. Not handouts.
     
  16. Mar 16, 2004 #15
    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.
     
  17. Mar 16, 2004 #16
    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.
     
  18. Mar 16, 2004 #17
    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.
     
  19. Mar 16, 2004 #18
    So, my definition is generally true, in the broadest terms, correct?
     
  20. Mar 16, 2004 #19

    Monique

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    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..
     
  21. Mar 16, 2004 #20
    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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Do the spanish realize what they just voted for?
Loading...