Spanish Elections

[Gustaf]

And I would want to say that at the beginning, Chirac was not against the war in Irak (look at 1990: france (with socialist president) was with USA against saddam) but the way in wich  the bush administration covered the subject has constrained Chirac and France to be against.
[/quote
Chirac was against war on Iraq, because he wanted to increase international influence and power of France. He wasn't against war itself. Chirac isn't pacifist. He is intriguer.

I consider that Schröeder did it with more pacifistic motive.

Chirac is a French nationalist, calling him a pacifist is absurd. Giving nuclear capability to Iraq certainly isn't pacifist. Schröder could be considered to be even worse, he opposed the war only to win the election.

And Mitterrand, the former socialist president of France, was much more pro-West than any other French president of the 5th republic. He even supported the Falklands War.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I liked Mitterand.
Sure he was a corrupt old fox... but so are all French Presidents.
Mitterand had Style

[YoMartin]

What is different about the scenerio?  Are you saying that the socialist won't pull the troops out of Iraq after all?

I´m not saying that, but the attacks change everything, and the decissions by the government will accomodate to whatever the criminal investigations may lead to. Some pressure from far-right anti immigration parties (all over Europe, not  only in Spain) could increase in the future, and Zapatero, even coming from the left, may have to turn that way too.

[YoMartin]

IC-V Catalan Left - Greens, the Communists' regional wing in poll alliance with the Greens (who seem not even to exist outside Catalonia), that they got two seats again means there's a Green in the Cortes

I don´t mean to disappoint you, but I think those 2 MPs from Iniciativa per Catalunya - Les Verds are not greens but come from IU. It´s just a guess, but communists would have to be really stupid to give the almost non-existent greens one of the first two places in the list...

[opebo]

Al Queda won the Spanish elections.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

100% correct, Opebo.

Al Queda won the Spanish elections.

[agcatter]

The European leftists who are rejoicing at the defeat of the pro American government in Spain need to keep one thing in mind.  The Europeans have been free to pursue their utopian social policy largely because they only had to spend a tiny part of their GNPs on defense.  We took care of their defense needs for them.  Well, Europe, you are now at the mercy of Islamic terrorists in Spain, France, Britain, Germany, and Italy.  With their large muslim populations and the door now wide open in Spain to Islamic extremists in North Africa, you are going to have to fend for yourself.

Europe lacks the will to fight back and now Al Quida knows Europeans can be intimidated by a few well placed explosives left on soft targets.  Expect much more.  The elections in Spain cost us 1200 Spanish soldiers in Iraq.  Those will be replaced.  Europeans on the other hand have now given the go ahead to a bunch of jihadists who intend to rain death and destruction on hundreds and thousands in a half dozen European countries.  You are now at the mercy of a gang of thugs who attach no value to human life.  You asked for it.  I'm sorry for you.

[YoMartin]

Al Queda won the Spanish elections.

So 63% of spaniards (everyone who didn´t vote for Aznar) are either a) Al Qaeda supporters or b) so stupid that are working for Osama bin Laden without even knowing it...

People can think different than you without supporting Al Qaeda. The choice is not restricted to Bush/Aznar or Bin Laden. If you think that your ideas are the only pure, honest, valid and true ones, then your mind operates in a similar way than the Talibans´.

[agcatter]

The answer is b.

Those who choose peace over freedom will get neither.

[M]

What happened in Spain was terrible and unf\dermined some of my faith in human nature. Effectively, the Spanish people caved intio terrorism and allowed it to influence the democratic process. This has nothing to do with capitalism and socialism, militarism or pacifism. This has to do with an appeasement mindset, that perhaps if you seek accomodation with a murderer he will leave you alone.

This mindset has been popular in the West for at least a century, and here's why: in a democratic country, with an established tradition, most differences are resolved passibly. A dialogue exists between people, sometimes an angry one, but the communication is with words. Everyone wants something, and usually it is reasonable to work towards a sensible goal, often through compromise. Occasionally there are criminals who brake the code and do something unforgivable, and they are dealt with, sometimes with force, but even there we try  very hard to make sure they get a fair shake and justice is not arbitrary.

And so this mindset overwhelms us. Everyone is a pretty good person, or at least has reasonable goals. Then there are these junctures in history when we run up against a real monster, a truly pathological killer, someone who will stop at nothing, not murder, rape, oppression, enslavement, nor threatening the entire world with destruction. The classic example, of course, is Adolf Hitler. His arguments, we civilized folk of the West believed, were reasonable. The indemnities of Versailles was crushing. The Rhineland was indeed Germany's own backyard. The postwar borders were unfair. And who really cared about the Jews anyway? And so the West strove to be fair, to help Germany establish sensible borders.

At each turn the Nazis saw weakness. Allowing the Rhineland's militarization proved the West would avoid war at any cost. Allowing the anschluss meant the borders of Europe could be tampered with, the Munich pact recognized that even democraciers would not be protected because the allies trembled before Germany's might. And so the Germans grew stronger, and in the end at least 50 million lives were lost in the most terrible confict our world has ever seen.

What happened in Spain is niot about the war in Iraq. What happened was that Al Qaeda hit Madrid, slaughtered dozens, and within 80 hours the Spanish government had pledged to withdraw soldiers from Iraq, thus fulfilling one of Al Qaeda's goals. Make no mistake: Al Qaeda knows they have altered the balance of power between Paris and Washington, destroyed the old legend of Spanish Pride, and put a less hostile government in Spain. But that is not the main thing they have learned. They have found a terror tactic that works. They have found a fundamental, perhaps fatal, flaw of democracies. And they will not hesitate to use it again, and again, and again.

[minionofmidas]

IC-V Catalan Left - Greens, the Communists' regional wing in poll alliance with the Greens (who seem not even to exist outside Catalonia), that they got two seats again means there's a Green in the Cortes

I don´t mean to disappoint you, but I think those 2 MPs from Iniciativa per Catalunya - Les Verds are not greens but come from IU. It´s just a guess, but communists would have to be really stupid to give the almost non-existent greens one of the first two places in the list...

Well, why call it that, then?

[minionofmidas]

Has any European nation NOT supporting US led actions against Muslim countries ever been attacked by Muslim terrorists? I think not.

It depends on how you define "attacked", I guess.
turkey certainly has been attacked by Al-Qaeda, and they aren't exactly the US's keenest allies. But then I guess everybody can see Al-Qaeda's reasons for that...

[Umengus]

The terrorist win is not zapatero, it's the "PATRIOT act". Spain is a powerfull democracy and terrorist attacks could not change that. The win of zapatero is the win of the democracy, not the win of terrorism.

France and other western democracy (Belgium, Germany, Spain,...) are currently in Afganistan to fight Talibans and Al Qaeda.  The war against Iraq was not a war against terrorism because Al Qaeda was not in Iraq.

I think that the fight against terrorism requires a great european army, a great collaboration between the countries (and it's the case) and especially good leaders and sorry but Bush is not a good leader.

[dunn]

M
wellcome back. you are right about that connection

Gustaf
Turkey did not let US airplanes to go throu and had a muslim gonerment. But they are secular-west bounded and that was enough for Al Qaeda.

The europeans will understand after many many more death in cities around Europe

[Filuwaúrdjan]

If Spain had regional consttuencies results (e.g. Catalunya)  would be

PSOE 154
PP      144
IU         14
CIU       10
ERC         8
PNV         7
BNG         3
OTHERS   7

so, litle increase for IU

Interesting

[Huckleberry Finn]

If Spain had regional consttuencies results (e.g. Catalunya)  would be

PSOE 154
PP      144
IU         14
CIU       10
ERC         8
PNV         7
BNG         3
OTHERS   7

so, litle increase for IU

Nice to see another Finn here. Which part of Finland you live in?

[Gustaf]

The European leftists who are rejoicing at the defeat of the pro American government in Spain need to keep one thing in mind.  The Europeans have been free to pursue their utopian social policy largely because they only had to spend a tiny part of their GNPs on defense.  We took care of their defense needs for them.  Well, Europe, you are now at the mercy of Islamic terrorists in Spain, France, Britain, Germany, and Italy.  With their large muslim populations and the door now wide open in Spain to Islamic extremists in North Africa, you are going to have to fend for yourself.

Europe lacks the will to fight back and now Al Quida knows Europeans can be intimidated by a few well placed explosives left on soft targets.  Expect much more.  The elections in Spain cost us 1200 Spanish soldiers in Iraq.  Those will be replaced.  Europeans on the other hand have now given the go ahead to a bunch of jihadists who intend to rain death and destruction on hundreds and thousands in a half dozen European countries.  You are now at the mercy of a gang of thugs who attach no value to human life.  You asked for it.  I'm sorry for you.

OK, now I have to just speak up and say that you're wrong. First off, I don't think that the defence business thing matter. I don't have the exact numbers in my head, but I do believe that the difference in European and American defense spending, as in terms of % of GDP is suffuciently small to not affect the underlying structure of society. And it's cheap to call it 'utopian', making it sound like something very strange, which it really isn't.

Secondly, you seem to imply that the Spanish were fighting against terrorism but were then intimidated by the attacks and backed off. That is not correct, they didn't want the war from the out-start, they just tolerated the conservatives having a different opinion on this as long as it didn't hurt. Now it did and it became an issue. There are other factors as well, but these are the most important ones.

[YoMartin]

What happened in Spain was terrible and unf\dermined some of my faith in human nature. Effectively, the Spanish people caved intio terrorism and allowed it to influence the democratic process. This has nothing to do with capitalism and socialism, militarism or pacifism. This has to do with an appeasement mindset, that perhaps if you seek accomodation with a murderer he will leave you alone.

This mindset has been popular in the West for at least a century, and here's why: in a democratic country, with an established tradition, most differences are resolved passibly. A dialogue exists between people, sometimes an angry one, but the communication is with words. Everyone wants something, and usually it is reasonable to work towards a sensible goal, often through compromise. Occasionally there are criminals who brake the code and do something unforgivable, and they are dealt with, sometimes with force, but even there we try  very hard to make sure they get a fair shake and justice is not arbitrary.

And so this mindset overwhelms us. Everyone is a pretty good person, or at least has reasonable goals. Then there are these junctures in history when we run up against a real monster, a truly pathological killer, someone who will stop at nothing, not murder, rape, oppression, enslavement, nor threatening the entire world with destruction. The classic example, of course, is Adolf Hitler. His arguments, we civilized folk of the West believed, were reasonable. The indemnities of Versailles was crushing. The Rhineland was indeed Germany's own backyard. The postwar borders were unfair. And who really cared about the Jews anyway? And so the West strove to be fair, to help Germany establish sensible borders.

At each turn the Nazis saw weakness. Allowing the Rhineland's militarization proved the West would avoid war at any cost. Allowing the anschluss meant the borders of Europe could be tampered with, the Munich pact recognized that even democraciers would not be protected because the allies trembled before Germany's might. And so the Germans grew stronger, and in the end at least 50 million lives were lost in the most terrible confict our world has ever seen.

What happened in Spain is niot about the war in Iraq. What happened was that Al Qaeda hit Madrid, slaughtered dozens, and within 80 hours the Spanish government had pledged to withdraw soldiers from Iraq, thus fulfilling one of Al Qaeda's goals. Make no mistake: Al Qaeda knows they have altered the balance of power between Paris and Washington, destroyed the old legend of Spanish Pride, and put a less hostile government in Spain. But that is not the main thing they have learned. They have found a terror tactic that works. They have found a fundamental, perhaps fatal, flaw of democracies. And they will not hesitate to use it again, and again, and again.

I insist: I don´t think the punishment to Aznar was due to the attacks per se, but to the lies his government spread in the first hours after the attacks.

In fact, if you think that possible left wing victories are a "fundamental, perhaps fatal, flaw of democracies", I would also insist that, in the long run, this attacks will help right wing pro-military parties rather than pacifist left parties. And that´s my worry about the future of democracies.

[YoMartin]

IC-V Catalan Left - Greens, the Communists' regional wing in poll alliance with the Greens (who seem not even to exist outside Catalonia), that they got two seats again means there's a Green in the Cortes

I don´t mean to disappoint you, but I think those 2 MPs from Iniciativa per Catalunya - Les Verds are not greens but come from IU. It´s just a guess, but communists would have to be really stupid to give the almost non-existent greens one of the first two places in the list...

Well, why call it that, then?

The alliance existed, but I don´t think any of the 2 first spots was for the greens.

[minionofmidas]

Anyways, I think Ethelberth's regional results are wrong.
Or maybe he used a different system for allocating seats (not D'Hondt) or gave the constituencies different totals (because each province except Ceuta and Melilla is guaranteed three seats, Castile is grossly overrepresented.)
I have
PSOE 157
PP 145
IU 11
CC 4
BNG 3
PA (Andalusian regionalist, not in the current parliament) 2
All others unchanged.

Back to "Castile overrepresented": On a uniform 2% swing from PSOE to PP, PSOE would still lead in the popular vote 40,7%-39,7%, but PP would be the strongest party 157-155 (with the Esquerra losing one and the IU gaining one)

[dunn]

Anyways, I think Ethelberth's regional results are wrong.
Or maybe he used a different system for allocating seats (not D'Hondt) or gave the constituencies different totals (because each province except Ceuta and Melilla is guaranteed three seats, Castile is grossly overrepresented.)
I have
PSOE 157
PP 145
IU 11
CC 4
BNG 3
PA (Andalusian regionalist, not in the current parliament) 2
All others unchanged.

Back to "Castile overrepresented": On a uniform 2% swing from PSOE to PP, PSOE would still lead in the popular vote 40,7%-39,7%, but PP would be the strongest party 157-155 (with the Esquerra losing one and the IU gaining one)

I think you are closer
my calculation (D'hondt) are like yours but 156 for PSOE, 12 for IU

[minionofmidas]

So you used the Corrected System, rather than D'Hondt?
I think Sweden uses 1.7, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc as dividers, I don't  know about Finland, but traditional D'Hondt, as used in Spain and Portugal, uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, thus making it tougher for small parties to win a seat.

[M]

Now calculate it including SpanishAmerica, Spanish West Indies incl Trinidad, Phillipines, Guam, Two Sicilies, Milan, Sardinia, Malta, the Low Countries, Oran, Rio de Oro, and Rio Muni, please.

[Gustaf]

So you used the Corrected System, rather than D'Hondt?
I think Sweden uses 1.7, 3, 5, 7, 9 etc as dividers, I don't  know about Finland, but traditional D'Hondt, as used in Spain and Portugal, uses 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, etc, thus making it tougher for small parties to win a seat.

I ought ot know this I guess...no one cares, since the ned result is that each party gets the same percentage of seats as they got of the vote, almost exactly. But I think it's 1.4, but that's a vague recollection only.

[M]

If you include Charles V's Habsburg Empire at it's greatest extent, then throw in much of Cental Europe as well.