Support NeoGAF

[Ripclawe]

http://news.ft.com/cms/s/b46d07e0-3342-11d9-b6c3-00000e2511c8.html

Relations between the US and Spain's Socialist government hit a new low this week when President George W. Bush invited José María Aznar, Spain's former prime minister, to the White House for a private, 40-minute chat.


In a pointed snub to José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, who succeeded Mr Aznar and who incurred the wrath of the US by withdrawing Spanish troops from Iraq, President Bush has not yet returned Mr Zapatero's courtesy call last week to congratulate him on his re-election victory.

By contrast, Mr Bush has found time to return the calls of other European leaders, as well as leaders in developing countries, according to a list published in ABC, a conservative Spanish daily.

Mr Aznar, an unconditional ally of the US president, had entertained hopes that the US would transfer the centre of operations of the US Sixth Fleet from Naples to Rota, a naval base on Spain's Atlantic coast. As a first step, the US Navy had agreed to give more maintenance work to Izar, Spain's bankrupt, state-owned shipyards.

Spanish defence analysts say the Sixth Fleet maintenance contracts have now been put on ice.

“This was to be the salvation of Izar. Thousands of jobs were at stake,” said one analyst at the Real Instituto Elcano, Spain's leading foreign policy think-tank. “The Americans won't leave Rota, it is still important for them to have a naval base at the entrance to the Strait of Gibraltar, but we are no longer regarded as a strategic ally, and this is a disaster for Spain."

Defence analysts also see the hand of the US administration in reports that Israel has cancelled contracts for Spanish frigates, which would have been built by Izar.

 

[retardboy]

Ahahha awesome.

 

[demon]

 

[videogamer]

er, it's rude to do that. But we already know that Bush is an asshole anyways.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

"I forgot Spain."

 

[Ripclawe]

More details

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/mai...an12.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/11/12/ixworld.html

The Spanish Socialist prime minister, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, yesterday faced a barrage of derision over his government's anti-Americanism following a snub by President George W Bush.Mr Zapatero was one of the first premiers to send a congratulatory telegram to Mr Bush after his election victory last week.

But, in what was a stinging confirmation of the poor state of relations between Washington and Madrid, he has yet to receive a reply. Mr Zapatero had also telephoned Mr Bush before the election result was made official but was not put through to the president.

He then backed John Kerry in the presidential election and cancelled a standing invitation for US forces to participate in Spain's annual military parade.

Anti-war policies may be popular with the public, but even supportive sections of the media have said that the prime minister's anti-American stance had gone too far.

Most sectors of the Spanish press concluded that the telephone spat was "infantile" but that Mr Zapatero needed to act fast to recover Spain's loss of face abroad.

A columnist for the conservative newspaper ABC, stated bluntly: "Zapatero has put his foot in all of our arses".

White House officials denied there had been a snub and said that Mr Bush had not yet had time to contact Mr Zapatero as he was working his way through a list of calls.

However Mr Bush has already spoken to the French president, Jacques Chirac, and German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, the main critics of the Iraq war.

And to rub Mr Zapatero's nose in the transatlantic mess further, Mr Bush has invited King Juan Carlos and Queen Sofia to a supper during their visit later this month.

 

[lachesis]

it's like.. "I'll put you on hold!" Nice job, Bush, for disgracing another ally.

lachesis

 

[videogamer]

it's like.. "I'll put you on hold!" Nice job, Bush, for disgracing another ally.

lachesis

:/ In a perfect world, Zapatero would be rewarded for standing up to Bush.

 

[Azih]

Yup Bush's policy of reaching out to those who support him is in full effect. Geeezus

 

[BigJonsson]

Bush needs to understand the real meaning of "Democracy"

 

[Particle Physicist]

 

[xsarien]

It's nice to know that the leader of the free world is such a God damned, petty shit.

 

[borghe]

lol... spain backs out of support in Iraq and they are ok..

bush doesn't return a congratulatory call and he is an asshole..

you people need to get your priorites straight.. amazing how blind the legions of the liberals can be.. :/

 

[MetatronM]

Ahahha awesome.

There's nothing awesome about being a Grade A asshole to an ally.

Especially when you're supposed to be fighting a "global war." It's just plain stupid.

 

[pnjtony]

Spain backed out because it was the will of her people. THAT is democracy.

 

[borghe]

Spain backed out because it was the will of her people. THAT is democracy.

umm.. so that makes it right on a global scale?

 

[MetatronM]

lol... spain backs out of support in Iraq and they are ok..

bush doesn't return a congratulatory call and he is an asshole..

you people need to get your priorites straight.. amazing how blind the legions of the liberals can be.. :/

Last I checked, Spain has the right to do whatever the hell they damn well pleased with their military. If they don't want to fight a war just because we say so, then they don't have to.

But just because a country doesn't dance when you tell it to doesn't mean you can just pretend they aren't there or be an outright asshole to them.

 

[videogamer]

.

 

[pnjtony]

Absolutely. Based on misinformation and deciet, Bush and his close friends including the now ex-PM of spain decided to fuck with iraq. the people were pissed in spain, moreso than here I bet. Someone ran for PM on the platform that he'd be a true public servant and do the bidding of the people and he won hands down. He actually kept his campaign promise and pulled out. I think it was one of the best examples of democracy on a large scale i've ever seen.

 

[borghe]

Last I checked, Spain has the right to do whatever the hell they damn well pleased with their military. If they don't want to fight a war just because we say so, then they don't have to.

But just because a country doesn't dance when you tell it to doesn't mean you can just pretend they aren't there or be an outright asshole to them.

You are right, Spain has the right to do whatever they want. That wasn't my point. My point was that they obviously commited troops because at some point they felt what was happening was right, and they pulled the troops before things were finished.

It's like me starting a pickup game of football and then leaving part way through the game because I'm bored. I have every right to do it, doesn;t make it right though.

As for Bush not returning phone calls, it is just as much his right to not return them as it is their right to leave when the job isn't done.

Bush shouldn't have invaded Iraq in the first place, if you ask us.

you're right, saddam should have just stayed in power until he had the chance to do something REALLY terrible so then the rest of the world could blame the US for leeaving him in power for so long.

 

[MetatronM]

Absolutely. Based on misinformation and deciet, Bush and his close friends including the now ex-PM of spain decided to fuck with iraq. the people were pissed in spain, moreso than here I bet. Someone ran for PM on the platform that he'd be a true public servant and do the bidding of the people and he won hands down. He actually kept his campaign promise and pulled out. I think it was one of the best examples of democracy on a large scale i've ever seen.

Well, to be fair, you are kind of ignoring the whole incident with the blowing stuff up in Madrid and the people flipping out and all.

 

[videogamer]

you're right, saddam should have just stayed in power until he had the chance to do something REALLY terrible so then the rest of the world could blame the US for leeaving him in power for so long.

Uh we had him contained. And unlike what the Bush administration was claiming, Iraq had no WMDs. In fact, their primary reason for attacking Iraq has been blown away by subsequent reports. Anyways, it's interesting to note that they attacked and occupied Iraq while leaving other dictators.

 

[borghe]

Absolutely. Based on misinformation and deciet, Bush and his close friends including the now ex-PM of spain decided to fuck with iraq. the people were pissed in spain, moreso than here I bet. Someone ran for PM on the platform that he'd be a true public servant and do the bidding of the people and he won hands down. He actually kept his campaign promise and pulled out. I think it was one of the best examples of democracy on a large scale i've ever seen.

yeah, because the whol train thing never happened....... must have been in all of their heads.

 

[MetatronM]

You are right, Spain has the right to do whatever they want. That wasn't my point. My point was that they obviously commited troops because at some point they felt what was happening was right, and they pulled the troops before things were finished.

It's like me starting a pickup game of football and then leaving part way through the game because I'm bored. I have every right to do it, doesn;t make it right though..

Considering the circumstances, I think it might be a bit more similar to you leaving the game with a sprained ankle than just "being bored."

 

[borghe]

Uh we had him contained. And unlike what the Bush administration was claiming, Iraq had no WMDs. Anyways, it's interesting to note that they attacked and occupied Iraq while leaving other dictators.

lol.... wtf does contained mean? he was free to do whatever the fuck he wanted.. hell, even the embargos didn't mean shit at the end of the day.

 

[videogamer]

lol.... wtf does contained mean? he was free to do whatever the fuck he wanted.. hell, even the embargos didn't mean shit at the end of the day.

Meaning he wasn't attacking other countries and wasn't making weapons of mass destruction (which was the primary reason for war). And if that isn't enough for you, you can look up the word "contained" in the dictionary.

 

[pnjtony]

yeah, because the whol train thing never happened....... must have been in all of their heads.

yes, the train thing did happen and that PM was already a candidate. Are you suggesting he had the train blown up to scare people into pulling out of a war they never wanted to be involved with in the first place?

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's like me starting a pickup game of football and then leaving part way through the game because I'm bored.

It's more like you starting a pickup game of football, getting replaced because your friends hate pickup football, and your replacement leaving.

 

[xsarien]

You are right, Spain has the right to do whatever they want. That wasn't my point. My point was that they obviously commited troops because at some point they felt what was happening was right, and they pulled the troops before things were finished.

It's like me starting a pickup game of football and then leaving part way through the game because I'm bored. I have every right to do it, doesn;t make it right though.

It really is *not* that simple. The Spanish government, at the time, went against the will of the Spanish people and committed troops to Iraq. It was never a popular decision, and the government suffered by way of being voted out because of it. Another factor was them trying to baselessly blame ETA for what was obviously an Al-Qaeda attack. You reap what you sow, as the cliche goes. And when you defy your people, you suffer for it. The government that was voted in earlier this year vowed to get out of Iraq, which is what most Spaniards wanted.

As for Bush not returning phone calls, it is just as much his right to not return them as it is their right to leave when the job isn't done.

No, it's called basic diplomacy. If he ever hopes to get Spain back on board - which is doubtful anyway - he could maybe kick things off by not revealing how personally he takes it when people defy his wishes.

you're right, saddam should have just stayed in power until he had the chance to do something REALLY terrible so then the rest of the world could blame the US for leeaving him in power for so long.

George H.W. Bush and his National Security Adviser thought leaving Saddam in place was a good idea, too. Note their stance on the issue:

Trying to eliminate Saddam, extending the ground war into an occupation of Iraq, would have violated our guideline about not changing objectives in midstream, engaging in "mission creep," and would have incurred incalculable human and political costs. Apprehending him was probably impossible. We had been unable to find Noriega in Panama, which we knew intimately. We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well. Under the circumstances, there was no viable "exit strategy" we could see, violating another of our principles. Furthermore, we had been self-consciously trying to set a pattern for handling aggression in the post-Cold War world. Going in and occupying Iraq, thus unilaterally exceeding the United Nations' mandate, would have destroyed the precedent of international response to aggression that we hoped to establish. Had we gone the invasion route, the United States could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different — and perhaps barren — outcome.

 

[borghe]

It really is *not* that simple. The Spanish government, at the time, went against the will of the Spanish people and committed troops to Iraq. It was never a popular decision, and the government suffered by way of being voted out because of it. Another factor was them trying to baselessly blame ETA for what was obviously an Al-Qaeda attack. You reap what you sow, as the cliche goes. And when you defy your people, you suffer for it. The government that was voted in earlier this year vowed to get out of Iraq, which is what most Spaniards wanted.

Which is fine. But again, when their agenda flies directly in the face of another's agenda it is almost ridiculous to not expect friction. They can pull their troops, listen to their people, but don't be "offended" when your "coalition" isn't happy about it.

No, it's called basic diplomacy. If he ever hopes to get Spain back on board - which is doubtful anyway - he could maybe kick things off by not revealing how personally he takes it when people defy his wishes.

now who is exxaggerating. "defying his wishes.." as for the other part.. yeah, but I am not a real big fan of lip service. I understand the concept of eating shit and smiling, but you won't ever hear me supporting it nor do I think it has a place in diplomacy.. just an opinion really.. if countries were more straight forward with each other in the first place the world would be a much better place for it.

George H.W. Bush thought leaving Saddam in place was a good idea, too.

a) I fail to see what relevance that has here
b) admittedly I know very little about that era. I was in high school and cared nothing for politics.

 

[videogamer]

now who is exxaggerating. "defying his wishes.."

Bush is well known for wanting things and having them done, even if it means running over other people. Take a look at how he interacts with Congress and see how Senators are arm twisted. Or look at how he treats former administration people who speak out of line.

Which is fine. But again, when their agenda flies directly in the face of another's agenda it is almost ridiculous to not expect friction. They can pull their troops, listen to their people, but don't be "offended" when your "coalition" isn't happy about it.

How was the withdrawl from Iraw "directly" counter to Bush's agenda? Bush could have just sent more troops. It's not like Spain was actively helping the Iraqi resistance.

 

[borghe]

Bush is well known for wanting things and having them done, even if it means running over other people. Take a look at how he interacts with Congress and see how Senators are arm twisted. Or look at how he treats former administration people who speak out of line.

and this is different from other politicians...... how?

How was the withdrawl from Iraw "directly" counter to Bush's agenda? Bush could have just sent more troops. It's not like Spain was actively helping the Iraqi resistance.

c'mon.. can we not play the naive game here.. let's look

the original PM goes into iraq, admittedly against the people's wishes. the new PM candidate runs almost solely on the platform that he will remove support from spain.

do I need to draw a pictogram?

 

[videogamer]

and this is different from other politicians...... how?

perhaps you should read more into Bush's actions and see how he has been much more aggressive than some previous presidents

 

[videogamer]

c'mon.. can we not play the naive game here.. let's look

the original PM goes into spain

uh who is playing naive now?

the new PM candidate runs almost solely on the platform that he will remove support from spain.

you obviously didn't pay attention to the PSOE much, do you?

 

[borghe]

perhaps you should read more into Bush's actions and see how he has been much more aggressive than some previous presidents

ooookkaay... now we are getting somewhere... so it is based on interpretation.

and thus the conversation ends.. I don't feel like getting into a debate on whether bush is the devil or not, because frankly I don't care. no matter what is said the people that don't like him (I believe you are gay so you certainly have a reason) will always find things that suck about him and the people who do like him will never entertain the basis for the other people not liking him..

all I came to this thread to say was that
a) lip service in politics fucking sucks. people need to be honest. if spain thinks bush is a bitch, call him one. if bush thinks spain is a pussy, say so.
b) the existing PM of spain basically ran on a platform consisting of him defying bush. it was in the interest of their people and he won fair and square, but don't expect bush to be pleased with it.

uh who is playing naive now?

after spending this entire time bashing bush for being petty, are you really going to be petty over a typo?

 

[videogamer]

.

 

[borghe]

Read more: as in reading newspaper articles on Bush's heavy handed treatment of others.

and agin this is different from other politicians how?

Uh, so the PSOE's arguments for domestic abuse reform, gay marriages, and greater integration into the EU are suddenly ignored?

compared to pulling troops out of Iraq and overall representing the people better, especially against the evil american president, yeah, pretty much.

1. Find a quote where I call Bush "petty".
2. You are the one who made the mistake, not me. How should I know it's a typo? It's pretty hard to accidently hit some keys and end up with "Spain".

it was a typo. time to move on.

 

[videogamer]

and agin this is different from other politicians how?

Try reading my posts again

compared to pulling troops out of Iraq and overall representing the people better, especially against the evil american president, yeah, pretty much.

why? They are important issues.

it was a typo. time to move on.

Uh you just accused me of saying something I didn't say. In real life, it might be called libel.

 

[borghe]

Try reading my posts again

lol... your posts equate to bush is the big bad guy. he pushes other countries around and steps on people without concern. now tell me one world leader who hasn't done this at some point and time.

The bottom line is you don't like bush so these are the things you point out about him. Other people probably don't like someone you would like so they would point that out about your favorite. it is the wonderful thing about living in a democracy. I am happy that you find so many things to not like about bush. I'm sorry I don't agree with you.

Clinton pushed people around
Bush Sr. pushed people around
Reagan pushed people around
Carter pushed people around
Ford pushed people around
Nixon pushed people around

etc. it comes with the territory.

why? They are important issues.

and I never said they weren't. but when one of your issues flies in the face of another person, you can't expect that other person not to be bothered. it feels like I'm going in circles here.

Uh you just accused me of saying something I didn't say. In real life, it might be called libel.

and you called me naive over a typo. let me know when you are ready to grow up.

anyway, it's been fun, I'm sorry you take everything bush does so personal... I couldn't care less, it was either him or kerry to take this country to shit over the next four years... at least with the public electing him (I didn't vote) a high paid fella like myself will see more tax breaks... but foreign policy, wars, social reform... kerry would have fucked things up just as bad.. well, YOU may not think so, but there are hundreds of millions of people out there who would disagree with you.

I'm gone for the weekend. enjoy.

 

[Socreges]

lol... spain backs out of support in Iraq and they are ok..

bush doesn't return a congratulatory call and he is an asshole..

That's right. Though I wouldn't necessarily call him an "asshole" (for that reason). Much of what leaders do is an act of the state, not simply character.

Spain faced a domestic crisis and did what was necessary.

I suppose that not just Bush, but his administration, have taken a stance to cut communications with Spain as a penalty for embarrassing the USA. It is in no way the appropriate way to deal with the situation, but the last four years has been in that manner, so whatever.

 

[videogamer]

lol... your posts equate to bush is the big bad guy. he pushes other countries around and steps on people without concern. now tell me one world leader who hasn't done this at some point and time.

The bottom line is you don't like bush so these are the things you point out about him. Other people probably don't like someone you would like so they would point that out about your favorite. it is the wonderful thing about living in a democracy. I am happy that you find so many things to not like about bush. I'm sorry I don't agree with you.

Apparently you didn't pay attention to this post:

perhaps you should read more into Bush's actions and see how he has been much more aggressive than some previous presidents [pay close attention to how the complaints about being in Cheney's office]

and I never said they weren't. but when one of your issues flies in the face of another person, you can't expect that other person not to be bothered. it feels like I'm going in circles here.

Look at what I quoted you on. It doesn't have to do anything with "issue flying in the face of another person". It has to do with the PSOE platform, but apparently you aren't paying attention to that either.

and you called me naive over a typo. let me know when you are ready to grow up.

Let me repost:
1. Find a quote where I call Bush "petty".
2. You are the one who made the mistake, not me. How should I know it's a typo? It's pretty hard to accidently hit some keys and end up with "Spain".

and Uh you just accused me of saying something I didn't say. In real life, it might be called libel.

Just because I kept an eye on your wild accusations about me doesn't mean that I am immature.

 

[borghe]

I really am gone, but seeing as you posted this.

Just because I kept an eye on your wild accusations about me doesn't mean that I am immature.

umm.. you've known what I meant for a while here yet you keep it up.. THAT is the immature part. enjoy your weekend. don't let bush ruin your life too much more. sorry that you can't read into context to know what I typed didn't make sense and must have been an error.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

umm.. so that makes it right on a global scale?

yes, democracy is always right when it is used for the will of the people.

Do you not understand what a democracy is? The leaders are supposed to listen to the majority of the people. The people in this case decided that they didn't want to be in Iraq. Therefore, the leaders took the troops out. Just like that, democracy worked.

 

[borghe]

yes, democracy is always right when it is used for the will of the people.

This is categorically wrong.

Democracy is always right FOR THE COUNTRY when it is used for the will of the people. HOWEVER, the will of the people doesn't necessarily have to do with what is right for the will of the world.

I will even use a very recent example for you liberal nuttos... GW got elected again in a democracy. despite what you guys say, the will of the people was that GW be elected.. so that is right no matter what you guys say, right?

yet you say that ISN'T what is best for the world..

so I guess the will of the people really can at times be not what's right for the world....

such a bitter pill.

 

[Ripclawe]

Yup Bush's policy of reaching out to those who support him is in full effect. Geeezus

Zapatero in no way supports Bush or America, his anti-Americanism gimmick has been going on before he was elected. No one is surprised that he is getting brushed aside as he should for the way he acts.

 

[Funky Papa]

Zapatero in no way supports Bush or America, his anti-Americanism gimmick has been going on before he was elected. No one is surprised that he is getting brushed aside as he should for the way he acts.

Zapatero is not against America but against Bush, it is not the same thing.

 

[Christoff Yurievich]

This is categorically wrong.

Democracy is always right FOR THE COUNTRY when it is used for the will of the people. HOWEVER, the will of the people doesn't necessarily have to do with what is right for the will of the world.

Remember Kerry's 'global test' and how America shouldn't have to submit their plans for anything to anyone? Shouldn't that apply to other countries as well? I mean, if our country shouldn't have to listen to the will of other countries in regards to war, shouldn't the reverse also be true? Spain should be free to do whatever it wants, right?

 

[borghe]

Spain should be free to do whatever it wants, right?

exactly. I have never said they didn't have the right to do so.

however, pulling out support for a war when you initially pledged support might be considered bad form in the view of an ally.

 

[videogamer]

.

 

[Socreges]

however, pulling out support for a war when you initially pledged support might be considered bad form in the view of an ally.

Might be considered, yes. But I'd like to think that world leaders take into effect circumstance. That one government pledging support does not mean that a successive government, consisting of entirely different leadership, has any obligation to continue such duties. Especially when they're more for a SHOW of support, versus the status of Iraq hanging on the brink for if Spain were to remove its forces it would plunge into chaos (I mean, its already there).

Not to mention that the people of Spain never supported the war and especially not after the bombing. The will of the people should be respected.