NationStates Jolt Archive

The action was US Foreign policy that has fuelled anger from some parts of the muslim world, and the CIA funding of Bin Laden, and Blair's unquestioning support of Bush.

Not only did the CIA train Al-Queadea to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan both the UK and the USA supported Saddam Hussain and gave him WMDs because he was the only non-Islamic State in the Middle East

IF the terrorists really were emboldened by the Spanish election, and wanted to achieve the same in the UK, then wouldn't they have set off their bombs there BEFORE the election?

Not if they're Smart Terrorists. It's been tried-and would have turned Tony Blair's party's bare-margin victory into a popular mandate to go out and kick Fundamentalist Ass.
UK Civilians don't respond well to that kind of blackmail-it's one of the few traits shared between the U.K. and the U.S.-the quickest way to get your teeth kicked in is to try and use violence to manipulate an election.

Personally, I agree-the Spanish change-of-government was inevitable-and the Terrorists would have to be genuinely ineffectual not to know that at the Operational Level-they staged the bombing, not to influence the election, but to take advantage of it.

Here's how:

Bombs go off, Electorate votes how they would in any case. BUT, now, Al-Qaeda uses the surface-thinking example to show potential recruits/bomb delivery devices that their efforts have power and meaning-because they can easily edit the impression to make the bombings look as if the demonstration of power is what changed the Spanish Electorate's mind, and not the Spanish desire to avoid the war from the get-go.

...UK Civilians don't respond well to that kind of blackmail-it's one of the few traits shared between the U.K. and the U.S.-the quickest way to get your teeth kicked in is to try and use violence to manipulate an election...
See, here's where I differ from many: I don't think there is ANY difference between Spanish people and British people. None.
But Spanish people into Britain and vice versa - you wouldn't know the difference (other than the language of course...)
No point boasting.

I have heard this around. I'm not the first to mention or will be the last in light of the most recent bombings in London. But you have to wonder if the Spanish people would have stood up and re-elected there president instead of going for a milk toast liberal. Would the terrorist have been embolden to strike at London to try and achieve the same outcome for the UK?
They were obviously not trying to achieve the same outcome, since they struck London after the British elections.

Also, Zapatero (the "milk toast liberal") is anything BUT soft on terror. He hunted down and cornered those responsible for the Madrid bombings, and in his investiture speech he declared:

"All our citizens must be made to know that the top priority of their Government will always be to fight terrorism, to give no quarter to terrorism, to wage an unswerving battle against any and all terrorism.

A battle to which we will dedicate all the resources available to a democratic society.

First of all, this means better equipped, better coordinated and better informed National Security forces, our National and Local Police, and related bodies. One contribution to this will be my commitment to create a unified Security Forces Command, whose mission will be to coordinate the efforts and effectiveness of our law enforcement professionals, and in doing so, ensure the safety and security of the Spanish people. Coordination of all of our national intelligence and information services, and increased measures against international terrorism will further improve efficiency and effectiveness.

This includes coordination with the police forces of the Basque Government and the Government of Catalonia, something that can be achieved through dialogue and institutional agreements with these Autonomous Communities.

I am further determined to foster the broadest possible international cooperation to ensure that we are successful in this fight. Cooperation to combat any and all forms of terrorism: the terrorists who have repeatedly struck us at home for over forty years, and international terrorism.

Such cooperation must always be undertaken with due respect for the democratic procedures and values that Spain has worked so hard to consolidate over the years.

Therefore, I will not make the mistake of restricting our basic freedoms in the name of national security; nor will I support any initiative that either violates national law, or bypasses international legal procedures.

For these same reasons, I will fight with equal zeal against any and all expression of xenophobia that might seek its excuse in recent events: Did not men and women from dozens of other nations die alongside our countrymen that day?"

- José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero

On another note, you should remember that while "giving in" will certainly encourage the terrorists, the same will happen if you strike at them too hard or with too much violence. You'll create martyrs.

If you captured Bin Laden and executed him on live TV, would that be the end of Al Qaeda? Hell no! It would outrage millions of Arabs and flood Al Qaeda's recruiting offices.

Killing Jesus didn't exactly stop the Christians, did it? Always remember the power of martyrdom.

Thank you. although ultimately the terrorists are to blame, we have fueled their cause by our wars.


Agreed.


The spanish electorate didn't want the war and voted against it afterwards.

That and The Spanish government lied to them on who carried out the Madrid bombings. Both were factors.

Not only did the CIA train Al-Queadea to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan both the UK and the USA supported Saddam Hussain and gave him WMDs because he was the only non-Islamic State in the Middle East

Very true. Sadly.

:D
Well said....but also very stupid indeed.
What a silly thing to say!

Cant handle the truth can you.

We dont want people doing terrorist attacks. Thats obvious. What if we didnt go into Iraq? Well 40 million people would still be under Saddams thumb. Would Madrid and London happen? Most likely. Nato was involved in Afghanistan. Where majority of people would agree was a just war.

Do terrorist attack for the fun of it? Dont know, dont want to be close enough to one to ask.


Actually, how many people would agree Afghanistan was a just war?

9/11 happened, US declared Al'qaeda and Osama Bin Laden was responsible,
although Bin Laden said they weren't.

U.S. demanded that the de facto government of Afghanistan hand over Osama.
Taleban said perhaps some evidence of some kind would be needed.
U.S. said to heck with evidence just hand him over or we attack you.
Taleban said well at least sit down with us and talk about it.
U.S. said to heck with talking, we ain't going to do no stinking talking.

U.N. security council passed a resolution allowing a war against Afghanistan,
so it was legal unlike the war with Iraq.
My reading of it at the time, was the U.S. was given a gimme due to the
horrific events of 9/11 and the complete lack of any sane target to strike
back against, I suspect it was hoped that this would allow the U.S. to get
their vicious pretence of retaliation out of their system.
Of course, Afghanistan wasn't exactly friend rich amongst the international
community and has no resources worth anyone getting worked up about.

To call it Just however would be simply a sick joke.

The Spanish president at the time was in a no lube situation in the opinion polls for months before the attacks. The facts are:

The Spanish president took Spain into the Iraq war.

90% of Spanish voters opposed entry into the Iraq war.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that terrorism or not, the incumbent was going to lose the election.

The rest is American revisionism.

Actually, how many people would agree Afghanistan was a just war?

9/11 happened, US declared Al'qaeda and Osama Bin Laden was responsible,
although Bin Laden said they weren't.

U.S. demanded that the de facto government of Afghanistan hand over Osama.
Taliban said perhaps some evidence of some kind would be needed.
U.S. said to heck with evidence just hand him over or we attack you.
Taliban said well at least sit down with us and talk about it.
U.S. said to heck with talking, we ain't going to do no stinking talking.

U.N. security council passed a resolution allowing a war against Afghanistan,
so it was legal unlike the war with Iraq.
My reading of it at the time, was the U.S. was given a gimme due to the
horrific events of 9/11 and the complete lack of any sane target to strike
back against, I suspect it was hoped that this would allow the U.S. to get
their vicious pretense of retaliation out of their system.
Of course, Afghanistan wasn't exactly friend rich amongst the international
community and has no resources worth anyone getting worked up about.

To call it Just however would be simply a sick joke.

The Bush said he had intelligence proof that Osama was the man...But he also had intelligence evidence for Iraq's WMD.

Afghanistan being a sovereign country naturally asked to see the evidence...in order to issue an arrest warrant for OBL...extradition was still possible.

The US refused...over nad over again to show this evedence to anyone...even to allied Govs and Friendly secret services...

later the US military took control of Afghanistan and they tried to do themselves what was asked of the Taliban : arrest Osama.

the US had much more resources than the Taliban..still...they failed...the greatest military ever went on the greatest manhunt in history...and by all measures...failed.

OBL became and Icon of armed Anti-Americanism...the greatest icon ever...even greater than CHE-Guevara.

at one point in a USA-Mexico football game in Mexico...the Crown chanted Osama-Osama...it was unreal.

Eventually Osama started delivering videos to All-Jazeera...
in the Video tapes Osama "Praised" the 9-11 Attack... never denying or confirming his personal level of involvement.

the US gov pointed out to this Aljazeera video tapes as his greatest "proof" yet!! ...which makes me wonder about their previous still-secret evidence. (the evidence they refused to show the afghanista Gov.)

regardless of proof and evidence...regardless of whether he organized 9-11 ...or if he didn't...Osama is a dead man(if we ever get him)...we know it...he knows it...everybody knows it.
nothing on earth is going to change that.

British blood on the hands of the Spanish electorate

Umm, I don't think so. I think it's more likely that the British blood is on the hands of Tony Blair. Given the majority of the UK are against the war.. They have no one to really blame but their propagandizing leader Tony Blair.

.........My reading of it at the time, was the U.S. was given a gimme due to the horrific events of 9/11 and the complete lack of any sane target to strike back against, I suspect it was hoped that this would allow the U.S. to get their vicious pretence of retaliation out of their system.

Why do you insist on living in denial? If we Americans actually were vicious and retaliatory, we would simply have obliterated both Afghanistan and Iraq and a number of other countries. We ARE fully capable of conquering and holding any country we wish and frankly there isn't anything the rest of the world could do about it at this point. It is ONLY our belief in freedom and equality that prevents us from acting more strongly - a fact some of you might wish to keep in mind.

No, I do not "blame" Spain for the attacks on London, nor did the I "blame" them from exiting the war when they did. However, I am concerned that a large number of European coutries did not seem to learn their lesson from Hitler, including Spain and France. It wasn't our war, but we came in and stopped it and decided right then that we would not allow it to happen again.

Would you all rather we had waited on Iraq until Hussain had Hitler's power??

This is the most unintelligent reason as to why London was attacked. Osama declared war against the countries that are involved in the Iraq war, meaning, all countries involved the Iraq war was a target of terrorist act. Spain was first, London, and they will continue unless they are completely stopped. That bombing in London would have taken place regardless if Spain brought back their troops. If this is your reason, how about this reasoning that several people believe, that terrorist acts would have not occurred in Europe if they haven't joined Bush's unjust war against Iraq. Europe has more in stake against terrorism than America because of it's proximity to Africa and Asia and yet you never see European governments obsessed with colour coding to signify the level danger in the country.

Umm, I don't think so. I think it's more likely that the British blood is on the hands of Tony Blair. Given the majority of the UK are against the war.. They have no one to really blame but their propagandizing leader Tony Blair.
Islamic extremists staged a lot of attacks in the West before the 2003 war in Iraq. The war is a catalyst for terrorism, but, IMHO, not its cause.

Islamic extremists staged a lot of attacks in the West before the 2003 war in Iraq. The war is a catalyst for terrorism, but, IMHO, not its cause.
Good point. Now perhaps you could detail the "cause"?

This is the most unintelligent reason as to why London was attacked. Osama declared war against the countries that are involved in the Iraq war, meaning, all countries involved the Iraq war was a target of terrorist act. Spain was first, London, and they will continue unless they are completely stopped. That bombing in London would have taken place regardless if Spain brought back their troops. If this is your reason, how about this reasoning that several people believe, that terrorist acts would have not occurred in Europe if they haven't joined Bush's unjust war against Iraq. Europe has more in stake against terrorism than America because of it's proximity to Africa and Asia and yet you never see European governments obsessed with colour coding to signify the level danger in the country.
Good post!!

Why do you insist on living in denial? If we Americans actually were vicious and retaliatory, we would simply have obliterated both Afghanistan and Iraq and a number of other countries. We ARE fully capable of conquering and holding any country we wish and frankly there isn't anything the rest of the world could do about it at this point. It is ONLY our belief in freedom and equality that prevents us from acting more strongly - a fact some of you might wish to keep in mind.

Actually, that's far from certain. We could certainly wipe out every human in either country, if we were willing to use nuclear weapons on them, but every politician in the country knows that's not a realistic option. We could certainly destroy the standing military of either country--which we have--but there's a long road from that to securing the country and occupying it, or as you put it, obliterating it. Militarily, perhaps we could do as you say, but politically, the will does not exist, even among Bush's most hard core supporters, to obliterate either country.

No, I do not "blame" Spain for the attacks on London, nor did the I "blame" them from exiting the war when they did. However, I am concerned that a large number of European coutries did not seem to learn their lesson from Hitler, including Spain and France. It wasn't our war, but we came in and stopped it and decided right then that we would not allow it to happen again.

Would you all rather we had waited on Iraq until Hussain had Hitler's power??
If you actually believe Hussein was on the path to becoming another Hitler, then I'm surprised you're able to breathe without being reminded occasionally. And you might want to take a little refresher course in US history as well, assuming you've taken one in the first place, focusing on the reasons for the US's entry into WWII, as well as discovering the fact that in WWII, Spain was neutral and was never attacked by Hitler's Germany.

Good point. Now perhaps you could detail the "cause"?
Eeehhh... I think that the description of 'the cause' will someday fill several volumes of some Oxford historian, but I'll try to express my thoughts on 'how it started'.

The Muslim Brotherhood (possibly the first 'modern' Islamic exstremists) was set up in 1920s in the first place as an anti-colonial organization (they didn't like the fact that the Muslims were ruled for the most part from London or Paris, either directly or through local monarchs). It is very telling that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, the country that can boast a long and remarkable history. The ideologues of Islamism were disturbed, some of them offended, by Western dominance of the World, regarding it as an unjustified imposition on Muslims and an affront to the ancient history of their lands and peoples.

The then recent fall of the Ottoman Caliphate added fuel to the fire. The Ummah had no longer an undisputed religious leader, and extreme ideologues obtained greater theologic freedom. It is unsurprising that the establishment of mandate system and occupation of several Muslim lands drew their ire, among other things.

Thus the modern Islamic militancy was born and now, 80 years later, it is still offended by Western world domination. The political games that were played during the Cold War by the US and the USSR didn't help either. The Americans supported and trained militants in Afghanistan, we aided and trained Palestinian terrorists.

And now the world is trapped in a vicious circle of attacks and retaliatory actions. Make no mistake, I am far from declaring moral equivalence and such - I have taken sides and I support the West, which to me includes Russia, and I'm an Anglophile and a Judaeophile. But I don't want a Pyrrhic victory over Islamic terrorism, a victory which will leave us devoid of justice, morality, and freedom.

Turn the West into a single totalitarian 'commonwealth of nations' and you win hands down -- no al-Qaeda, nay nothing on Earth, can withstand the combined power of the Western world. But is it a victory?

...


If you actually believe Hussein was on the path to becoming another Hitler, then I'm surprised you're able to breathe without being reminded occasionally. And you might want to take a little refresher course in US history as well, assuming you've taken one in the first place, focusing on the reasons for the US's entry into WWII, as well as discovering the fact that in WWII, Spain was neutral and was never attacked by Hitler's Germany.
Hussein's post-Gulf-war Iraq as a future Nazi Germany, a threat to the world peace? That's... well, let's ask Mr Cheney, shall we?

And the question in my mind is how many additional American casualties is Saddam worth? And the answer is not very damned many. So I think we got it right, both when we decided to expel him from Kuwait, but also when the president made the decision that we'd achieved our objectives and we were not going to go get bogged down in the problems of trying to take over and govern Iraq.

As regards to Spain... it wasn't occupied by the Nazis in WWII; and what is more, Franco was an ally of Hitler, although he cannot be counted among the closest and dependable allies of Nazi Germany.

Well alot of people have said before but I can try to say it my own world. That spanish people was not covards. They could have been labeled covards if they there had been supporters of the war and then suddenly be against the war and the goverment after the atacks. But the spanish people was against the war from the begining. So it would be much better if Bush "that say that he his for democracy" finds country there the people is for his wars instead of countries there just the leaders is for the wars. Because beliving in the will of the people instead of the will of "enlighted" leaders seems more democratic to me.

Actually, how many people would agree Afghanistan was a just war?

9/11 happened, US declared Al'qaeda and Osama Bin Laden was responsible,
although Bin Laden said they weren't.

U.S. demanded that the de facto government of Afghanistan hand over Osama.
Taleban said perhaps some evidence of some kind would be needed.
U.S. said to heck with evidence just hand him over or we attack you.
Taleban said well at least sit down with us and talk about it.
U.S. said to heck with talking, we ain't going to do no stinking talking.

U.N. security council passed a resolution allowing a war against Afghanistan,
so it was legal unlike the war with Iraq.
My reading of it at the time, was the U.S. was given a gimme due to the
horrific events of 9/11 and the complete lack of any sane target to strike
back against, I suspect it was hoped that this would allow the U.S. to get
their vicious pretence of retaliation out of their system.
Of course, Afghanistan wasn't exactly friend rich amongst the international
community and has no resources worth anyone getting worked up about.

To call it Just however would be simply a sick joke.

To try and get Bin Laden whom was basically the defense minister of said country isnt a sick joke. What kind of dreamworld do you live in? Would you have just done nothing? It is just to go after the killers of your citizens. wherever they may be.

Someone against the Afghanistan war? I thought I'd seen everything.

Had this happened to China, do you know what China would have done? They would have taken their planes, loaded them with nukes, and turned as much of Afghanistan as possible into a wasteland. Think about these things. Going in and ferreting out the terrorists who were behind 9/11 was a very good thing for America to do. No way in heck was there anything to do with it just being an easy target, because yes, they did try to talk, and yes, they did prove Bin Laden and his family was behind 9/11.

Someone against the Afghanistan war? I thought I'd seen everything.

Had this happened to China, do you know what China would have done? They would have taken their planes, loaded them with nukes, and turned as much of Afghanistan as possible into a wasteland.
This bit about China is PURE speculation on your part and really is unnecessary?

It is just to go after the killers of your citizens. wherever they may be.
Or wherever they might NOT be, such as Iraq?

Or wherever they might NOT be, such as Iraq?

I highly doubt you are in any postition to know that for 100% sure. There is a link of Iraqi intelligence from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Towers. Of course the Iraqi operatives that tried to kill Bush Sr in Kuwait. Nah, none of those would have been valid I guess.

This bit about China is PURE speculation on your part and really is unnecessary?

Just ones opinion. I doubt if it would have been exactly as he suggested. But China would have taken military action.

To quote the commie dynamo Free Soviets, I'd like to visit your planet just to see what it's like someday.

Afghanistan:
I actually wasn't in favour of the war when it happened.
It smelled a little bit too much like a revenge attack to me. I think Bin Laden's organisation was responsible (as responsible as a network like this can be held), and I also agree that Omar probably did let Bin Laden stay in Afghanistan. Why shouldn't he - Bin Laden was a big figure in the war that freed the country.
The Taliban (as bad as they may have been) did signal though that they had to work out how things were to be done. That is credible, considering the state the country was in and still is.
I also don't think Bin Laden actually told the Taliban about what was planned, and he never really came out and said "It was me!" afterwards either. So it is understandable that the Taliban were sceptical - apart from the matter that the US administration and them actually had been working on oil deals previously.

So I think they rushed to way too much and if it hadn't been for the UN saying it was OK, I would've been up in arms about it.
As it is, it's nice women aren't being stoned as much anymore, but otherwise nothing has been achieved - and appointing an Oil man as President and then doing that oil deal afterall didn't look to good either.

I highly doubt you are in any postition to know that for 100% sure. There is a link of Iraqi intelligence from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Towers. Of course the Iraqi operatives that tried to kill Bush Sr in Kuwait. Nah, none of those would have been valid I guess.
Still trying to make mountains out of molehills with a ton of unsubstantiated drivel? Tons of propaganda no proof.

!5 out of 19 terrorists that took part in 9/11 were from Saudi Arabia. And Bin Laden, the mastermind of 9/11, was born in Saudi Arabia. Most of the financing for 9/11? Well of course Saudi Arabia. Bin Laden training? Courtesy of CIA. Taliban supporters in Afghan war against Soviets? The United States of America.

Iraq and al-Qaida links? None as per 9/11 Commission (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5223932/).

The real reasons for war? Try this perspective (http://www.lnreview.co.uk/hi/world/000649.php).

And while you are there, you can read: “This guy tried to kill my dad”

Iraq was no threat to the US, and Bush's decision to invade Iraq is coming back to haunt him and his supporters on a daily basis.

Blame the Spaniards? Give me a break!!

Still trying to make mountains out of molehills with a ton of unsubstantiated drivel? Tons of propaganda no proof.



I honestly dont think you would know proof if it hit you square between the eyes.

The Spanish president at the time was in a no lube situation in the opinion polls for months before the attacks. The facts are:

The Spanish president took Spain into the Iraq war.

90% of Spanish voters opposed entry into the Iraq war.

It doesn't take a genius to work out that terrorism or not, the incumbent was going to lose the election.

The rest is American revisionism.

Actually Jose Maria Aznar, the incumbent was significantly ahead in the polls before the attacks took place and also significantly outperformed Zapatero in the regional elections subsequent to the Iraqi invasion. For one reason or another the Madrid bombings swung the election.

Eeehhh... I think that the description of 'the cause' will someday fill several volumes of some Oxford historian, but I'll try to express my thoughts on 'how it started'.

The Muslim Brotherhood (possibly the first 'modern' Islamic exstremists) was set up in 1920s in the first place as an anti-colonial organization (they didn't like the fact that the Muslims were ruled for the most part from London or Paris, either directly or through local monarchs). It is very telling that the Muslim Brotherhood was founded in Egypt, the country that can boast a long and remarkable history. The ideologues of Islamism were disturbed, some of them offended, by Western dominance of the World, regarding it as an unjustified imposition on Muslims and an affront to the ancient history of their lands and peoples.

The then recent fall of the Ottoman Caliphate added fuel to the fire. The Ummah had no longer an undisputed religious leader, and extreme ideologues obtained greater theologic freedom. It is unsurprising that the establishment of mandate system and occupation of several Muslim lands drew their ire, among other things.

Thus the modern Islamic militancy was born and now, 80 years later, it is still offended by Western world domination. The political games that were played during the Cold War by the US and the USSR didn't help either. The Americans supported and trained militants in Afghanistan, we aided and trained Palestinian terrorists.

And now the world is trapped in a vicious circle of attacks and retaliatory actions. Make no mistake, I am far from declaring moral equivalence and such - I have taken sides and I support the West, which to me includes Russia, and I'm an Anglophile and a Judaeophile.
all around accurate... thumbs up.

I would say "80 years later, they were still offended by (soviet and US) puppet dictators "

Libya, Syria, Iraq used to have Dictators supported by the soviets...most of soviet-protected dictators decided to offer allegiance to the US...when the soviets started to fade.

See, here's where I differ from many: I don't think there is ANY difference between Spanish people and British people. None.
But Spanish people into Britain and vice versa - you wouldn't know the difference (other than the language of course...)
No point boasting.

Probably why so many Brits retire there. My aunt moved there last year and says you don't even need to speak Spanish for all the Brits already there.

Probably why so many Brits retire there. My aunt moved there last year and says you don't even need to speak Spanish for all the Brits already there.the wheater and food are a plus.

yes I do like spanish food :D

The whole coastal areas in Valencia are now bilingual: English and German.
In Calpe, we stopped to eat tapas but couldn't find any. They had a German beerhouse, a Bavarian dry cleaner (!) and fish & chip restaurants with British flags all around the place. Nothing even looked remotely Spanish... except the "no trespassing signs", which were actually written in Spanish.
Since we had paid for a trip in "Spain" and not in "Germany's sunny backyard", we moved south to Murcia. We had Spanish food. We were happy (hey, we'll visit Germany next time, okay.)

But... the Mediterranean coast line in Spain is all built up and covered in concrete. What have they done with their country?!?!?!?

My grandparents have a second house on Mallorca, and I spent many summers there...
Never had to learn a word of Spanish though. ;)

I honestly dont think you would know proof if it hit you square between the eyes.
I really don't think you are qualified to make that assessment, considering that most of your "facts" have no basis in reality, and are obsessively slanted to defend the Bush administration, whether they be right wrong or indifferent.

Blaming the UK deaths on the "Spanish electorate", is just not right thinking, and is bottom of the barrel sensationalism. The US should never have invaded Iraq in the first place.

BTW, instead of singling out Spain the next time, why not pick from the growing list?

Non-US Forces in Iraq - 15 March 2005 (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_orbat_coalition.htm)

Countries which had troops in or supported operations in Iraq at one point but have pulled out since: Nicaragua (Feb. 2004); Spain (late-Apr. 2004); Dominican Republic (early-May 2004); Honduras (late-May 2004); Philippines (~Jul. 19, 2004); Thailand (late-Aug. 2004); New Zealand (late Sep. 2004); Tonga (mid-Dec. 2004) Hungary (end Dec. 2004); Portugal (mid-Feb. 2005); Moldova (Feb. 2005)

Countries planning to withdraw from Iraq: Poland (starting Jan.05 and completed by end.05(?)); the Netherlands (Mar. 05); Bulgaria (end of 2005, depending on circumstances); Ukraine (entire contingent, in stages until mid-October 2005), Italy (Sept. 2005)

Countries which have reduced or are planning to reduce their troop commitment: Ukraine (-200 during Fall04 rotation); Moldova (reduced contingent to 12 around mid-2004); Norway (reduced from ~150 to 10 late-Jun.04, early Jul.04); Bulgaria (-50, Dec.04); Poland (-700, Feb.05).

Actually Jose Maria Aznar, the incumbent was significantly ahead in the polls before the attacks took place and also significantly outperformed Zapatero in the regional elections subsequent to the Iraqi invasion. For one reason or another the Madrid bombings swung the election.
Significantly ahead? Only if you count being within the margin of error as significantly ahead. What most Spanish news organizations attributed the final swing towards Zapatero to was not the bombings themselves, but the Aznar administration's repeated insistence that it was ETA who was responsible instead of al-Qaeda. When it came out quickly that it was indeed al-Qaeda, the public revolted from the party in power and punished them. The swing wasn't that large--if Zapatero hadn't been so close to begin with, he probably wouldn't have won. I'll give him this though--he's certainly consolidated his gains in the last year or so.

The whole coastal areas in Valencia are now bilingual: English and German.
In Calpe, we stopped to eat tapas but couldn't find any. They had a German beerhouse, a Bavarian dry cleaner (!) and fish & chip restaurants with British flags all around the place. Nothing even looked remotely Spanish... except the "no trespassing signs", which were actually written in Spanish.
Since we had paid for a trip in "Spain" and not in "Germany's sunny backyard", we moved south to Murcia. We had Spanish food. We were happy (hey, we'll visit Germany next time, okay.)

But... the Mediterranean coast line in Spain is all built up and covered in concrete. What have they done with their country?!?!?!?


Come to Portugal, Europe's west coast ;)

I think it enocuraged further action, but it is not Spain's fault, nor is it the U.K. fault. When the Spainish voted out their leader as wanted by the terrorist it showed that it could be an effective tactic, but had they not voted him out, then they still would have bombed somewhere.