PDA

View Full Version : Western Sahara



Dr.T
November 8th, 2010, 07:51 AM
The Polisario Front representative in Spain, Bucharaya Beyun, has reported today that the dismantling of the Gdaim Izik camp (Western Sahara) by Moroccan forces have killed 12 people, and one more died in subsequent incidents are occurring in El Aaiún city.




El delegado del Polisario en España denuncia 13 muertos en el desalojo y los ataques en El Aaiún


Fuerzas de seguridad marroquís y grupos saharauis se enfrentan en la capital donde han quemado contenedores, parte del mobiliario urbano y coches

La batalla campal se ha iniciado después del desmantelamiento violento del campamento

Lunes, 8 de noviembre del 2010 - 08:41h.
BEATRIZ MESA (RABAT)


El delegado del Frente Polisario en España, Bucharaya Beyun, ha denunciado hoy que en el desmantelamiento del campamento de Gdaim Izik (Sáhara Occidental) por fuerzas marroquís han fallecido 12 personas, y una más ha muerto en los incidentes posteriores que se están registrando en El Aaiún.

Esta mañana el Ejército marroquí logró desmantelar el campamento saharaui, Agdaym Izikk, convertido a esta hora en cenizas, han asegurado fuentes saharauis a EL PERIÓDICO. Los saharauis que llevaban semanas protestando por mejorar las condiciones sociales fueron amenazados y golpeados por las autoridades del país hasta que se vieron obligados a regresar a la ciudad de El Aaiún donde se ha levantado una inédita batalla campal, algo que no sucedía desde el año 1975 cuando España cedió su última colonia tras firmar los Acuerdos de Madrid. Según la activista española Isabel Terrazas, “barricadas de saharauis están quemando contenedores, coches, parte del mobiliario urbano y ahora intentan acceder a la delegación del Gobierno como protesta a la represión que los saharauis sufrieron en el campamento”.

antidisturbios y efectivos militares y policiales acordonan toda la ciudad de El Aiún para reprimir a los manifestantes que han convertido las protestas sociales en una sola reivindicación política: la libertad del pueblo saharaui. Ríos de banderas del Frente Polisario, aseguran testigos desde El Aaiún, son blandidos por jóvenes saharauis que se están movilizando por los diferentes barrios poblados de activistas.



“Hay muchos heridos, pero no solo en las filas de saharauis, también en las filas de marroquís. De momento, no conocemos el número”, ha asegurado a EL PERIÓDICO, el delegado de la oenegé Human Rights Watch (HRW), Brahim el Ansari, de los primeros en encabezar el campamento de más de 7.000 jaimas que hace varias semanas se levantaron como señal de protesta para mejorar las condiciones de trabajo y de vivienda de los saharauis.

El Gobierno marroquí se reúne a esta hora para evaluar la situación en la antigua colonia española y, de momento, declina hacer declaraciones hasta que no tenga todos los datos de los enfrentamientos que comenzaron alrededor de las siete de la mañana. El Frente Polisario y la República Árabe Saharaui Democrática, por su parte, “condenan enérgicamente” el acto en el asentamiento de las jaimas y piden a Naciones Unidas “asumir sus responsabilidades y hacer todo lo posible para poner fin a este crimen”.

Mientras la ciudad del El Aaiún “arde”, como relatan activistas saharauis, Marruecos y el Polisario se vuelven a ver hoy las caras en Nueva York para reanudar las conversaciones con el fin de encontrar una solución al eterno conflicto del Sáhara Occidental.


Mujeres y niños golpeados

Respecto al desalojo del campamento, fuentes presenciales han explicado que las fuerzas de seguridad han entrado esta mañana cuando toda la población descansaba y por la fuerza han avanzado destrozando todo a su paso. En el asalto, Brahim asegura que ha habido muchos heridos y algunos muertos.
Diferentes colectivos por los Derechos Humanos en el Aaiún han explicado a EL PERIÓDICO que las familias han sido “golpeadas por las fuerzas auxiliares, incluidos mujeres y niños”, a los que han obligado a montar en coches Land Rover para volver a la ciudad. Un helicóptero --aseguran también las mismas fuentes-- sobrevuela la zona y desde las seis de la mañana ha estado lanzando una especie de bengalas para asustar a los saharauis. “¡Es una masacre. Las mujeres están desesperadas buscando a los niños que han huido”, ha explicado Brahim poco después de salir del campamento.

http://www.elperiodico.com/es/noticias/politica/20101108/delegado-del-polisario-espana-denuncia-muertos-desalojo-los-ataques-aaiun/584717.shtml

Dr.T
November 8th, 2010, 08:16 AM
Stop Moroccan Genocide at Western Sahara !
Freedom for Western Sahara !


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VR5NfgsYxJk

Dr.T
November 8th, 2010, 08:28 AM
Where's James Baker and Obama's Administration ?
Is US Government friend of genocide King of Marocco ?
What a shame !
After 1976, USA is guilty of genocide at Western Sahara...
Saharauis people were Spaniard citizen till 1976, now they are slaves of Mohamed VI, the genocide King of Marocco...

Ninjahedge
November 8th, 2010, 09:21 AM
After all, it is the responsiblity of the US to be the World's police, right?

ZippyTheChimp
November 8th, 2010, 01:26 PM
After 1976, USA is guilty of genocide at Western Sahara...
Saharauis people were Spaniard citizen till 1976, now they are slaves of Mohamed VI, the genocide King of Marocco...It's reasonable to criticize the USA (or any country) for the various messes it has created around the world, but the current state of affairs in Western Sahara came about as a result of Spanish colonialism. Spain occupied the area as a colony from 1884 to 1975, and abandoned it after the Madrid Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Accords).

What has the USA to do with this, and what special expertise should it bring to bear to solve the problem?

Troops? I thought Spain had an army.

ablarc
November 9th, 2010, 03:50 PM
^ No army is as good as ours. And ours seems to be a clown act. These days, can anything be determined militarily?

Dr.T
November 10th, 2010, 05:29 AM
It's reasonable to criticize the USA (or any country) for the various messes it has created around the world, but the current state of affairs in Western Sahara came about as a result of Spanish colonialism. Spain occupied the area as a colony from 1884 to 1975, and abandoned it after the Madrid Accords (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madrid_Accords).

What has the USA to do with this, and what special expertise should it bring to bear to solve the problem?

Troops? I thought Spain had an army.


You're wrong Zippy...

When Franco was dying in Madrid, King Hassan II of Morocco launched the 'Green March' to invade the Western Sahara. The Spanish army, although the inhabitants of Western Sahara did not want it, left the territory of the oldest Spaniard Colony. Spain left the territory of Western Sahara because U.S. asked for it to King of Spain: our country was emerging from a dictatorship for 40 years and entered a new democratic period (in those days Spain was being drafted the new Constitution Act).

In 1976, Americans thought that the best option to have a stable ally in the Strait of Gibraltar would be Morocco, because they thought that in Spain, when Franco died, would happen the same that in Yugoslavia when Titov died, and Spain nation would break in 5 or 6 differents countries in the midst of another civil war.

So, Americans supported Morocco in Western Sahara in 1976 !. After 35 years, today Western Sahara is a territory occupied by Morocco, where women and children are murdered every day. King of Morocco and United States has no intention to celebrate a valid referendum in Western Sahara to create an independent nation (do you remember the James Baker's plan for Western Sahara ?). Many times Americans are idiots and this is an historic example. US is guilty of Marocco's murders at Western Sahara today.

Western Sahara is not a province of Marocco, Western Sahara must be a authentic nation, because is a rich territory (petrol, phosphate mines, major fishing grounds off its coast,...) with a population of only 700,000 inhabitants and its people is fighting many years against Marocco troops to reach the freedom. Marocco is a genocide nation and US is its partner in Western Sahara since 1976, don't forget Zippy !

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Thirty years of conflict
How the US and Morocco seized the Spanish Sahara


Last November marked the 30th anniversary of the Sahara crisis, triggered when Morocco successfully pressured Madrid out of its desert colony in autumn 1975. Despite the United States’ denials, declassified records reveal that King Hassan’s success was made possible through US intervention.
by Jacob Mundy

On October 1975 the International Court of Justice declared - in an opinion requested by Morocco - that “the materials and information presented to it do not establish any tie of territorial sovereignty between the territory of Western Sahara and the Kingdom of Morocco or the Mauritanian entity.” Hours later King Hassan claimed the opposite. The Hague, he told his subjects, had vindicated his irredentism: 350,000 Moroccan civilians would march into the Spanish Sahara as mujahedin to “reclaim” it for the motherland.
A flurry of diplomatic activity followed. In Spain, the cabinet fell into disarray as Franco collapsed into a fatal coma. A power struggle ensued between those sympathetic to independence (colonial administrators and elements of the foreign ministry) and those worried about relations with Morocco (the ultraconservatives of the National Movement). While the latter pushed for United Nations pressure to stop Hassan’s Green March, the former initiated a contrary bilateral dialogue to arrange a mutually face-saving agreement with Rabat. But all around the leaderless Spanish cabinet feared that a messy colonial war with Morocco was at hand.
Following Hassan’s announcement of the march, the Security Council ordered Secretary-General Kurt Waldheim to consult with the parties. The major stumbling block was the Western Saharans’ right to self-determination. Since the mid-1960s the United Nations had called for the decolonisation of Western Sahara through a popular vote, and later underscored the territory’s right to independence. In 1974 Spain promised that it would soon hold a plebiscite, which had triggered Hassan’s démarche to The Hague. At the time of the crisis most elements of the Spanish government were reluctant to abandon the Sahara without either holding a referendum or passing the duty off to the UN. Morocco, on the other hand, knew that the chances of winning such a referendum were slim to none. Most observers, including the UN and the CIA, had already concluded that the territory was manifestly in favour of independence. Hassan’s strategy was to intervene before such a vote could take place.
The march went off without a hitch starting on 6 November, though that same day a Security Council resolution “deplored” it. As the Moroccan magazine Tel Quel recently noted, only small number of Hassan’s mujahedin penetrated the territory - and then promptly returned barely threatening the Spanish “line of dissuasion” 10 kilometres behind the frontier. Yet unknown to most of the world, Moroccan armed forces had already stormed into the far northeast corner of the territory on 31 October, aiming to cut off any possible Algerian counter-invasion. There Hassan’s forces met with sporadic resistance from the Polisario, by then a two-year-old independence movement.
Hassan won the highly scripted game of chicken with Madrid. He recalled his marchers on 9 November claiming that things had turned out better than expected. Indeed, on 14 November, representatives of Morocco, Mauritania and Spain announced that they had reached an agreement that would install a tripartite administration until Spain’s formal exit in early 1976. Self-determination, they claimed, would take place through a simple consultation with the colonially constituted body of tribal Saharan elders, the Jama‘a. But before that could happen, the Jama‘a dissolved itself, declaring the Polisario the true representative of the Western Saharan people. Nearly half the indigenous population rallied to the exiled flag of the Polisario in Algeria, where they remain to this day in four refugee camps near Tindouf. Self-determination, denied in 1975, is still on hold even though the UN said in 1991 that it could hold a vote within months.
War and peace

Both King Hassan and the Mauritanian president, Ould Daddah, had greatly underestimated the Polisario’s abilities to wage guerrilla warfare and also the fury of the Algerian president, Houari Boumedienne. Two features of Spain’s abandonment of the Sahara disturbed Boumedienne the most: The map of North Africa had been redrawn without Algeria’s consent and western powers had worked to marginalise Algerian interests during the crisis. A champion of national liberation movements, Boumedienne could not let this affront stand unchecked. The regime of Ould Daddah soon fell to the Saharan guerrillas, and Morocco found itself almost entirely driven out of the Sahara four years after receiving it from Spain.
Saudi, French and US aid reversed this trend for King Hassan, enabling the monarch to regain much of the territory. Excluding Egypt, Morocco has received more economic and military aid from the US than any other African country. By 1988, with the UN again involved in the conflict, Morocco was in a much better position to negotiate or not negotiate. Though there was a ceasefire in 1991, Morocco’s military hold on the territory is much the same today, if not stronger.
Not only does Morocco illegally earn billions of dollars each year from the rich fishing off the coast, but top generals in the Moroccan armed forces now have controlling stakes in those key industries. The confluence of economic and military interests in the Sahara is one of the major reasons behind Morocco’s rejectionist attitude when it comes to a referendum. Though the UN owes the Western Saharans a vote, no member of the Security Council is currently willing to force Morocco to allow such a plebiscite to take place. France and the US are more comfortable with a referendum that would ratify an autonomy agreement amiable to Morocco.
The subject of speculation

The role of the US government in the October-November 1975 crisis has been the subject of much speculation and little fact. With what scant, and often circumstantial, evidence has been available, various observers have accused the US of a range of reactions from passivity to complicity.
Not that claims of complicity were totally baseless. Three years after the crisis the Spanish parliament held an inquiry into the affair. There several officials claimed that France and the US had pressured Madrid into meeting Hassan’s demands. And the then deputy director of the CIA, Lt-General Vernon Walters, insinuated that he had intervened on behalf of the US during the crisis, a claim later echoed by other sources in the New York Times in 1981. Given Walter’s close relationship with Hassan, dating from the allied landing in Casablanca, journalist Bob Woodward once described him as the monarch’s personal case officer at the CIA.
Then there are the memoirs of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, US representative at the UN during the 1975 crisis. In an oft-quoted passage, Moynihan compared the once parallel histories of East Timor and Western Sahara: “China altogether backed Fretilin in Timor, and lost. In Spanish Sahara, Russia just as completely backed Algeria, and its front, known as Polisario, and lost. In both instances the United States wished things to turn out as they did, and worked to bring this about. The Department of State desired that the United Nations prove utterly ineffective in whatever measures it undertook. This task was given to me, and I carried it forward with no inconsiderable success.”
The US ambassador to Algeria during the crisis, Richard Parker, later wrote that it is possible that Hassan believed he had received a “green light” from the US to take the Spanish Sahara during a meeting with Henry Kissinger in the summer of 1975, though that may not have been the Secretary of State’s intention. Citing the “US’s lack of support for UN resolutions against the Green March” as kind of “circumstantial evidence” that “lends credence to the allegation” that Washington supported Hassan, Parker still felt that the “official record will never reveal the full truth.” He nevertheless concluded: “Anything was possible in that era.”
The US response to the crisis

The first sign the US government received that things were about to heat up in the Sahara was not, however, King Hassan’s 16 October announcement. Two weeks earlier the director of the CIA, William E Colby, had issued a memorandum to Kissinger that bluntly claimed: “King Hassan has decided to invade the Spanish Sahara within the next three weeks.” It claimed that Hassan feared The Hague’s opinion might not support Morocco’s claim to the Western Sahara, so a military invasion was being prepared. The monarch was also confident the Spanish military would not put up much of a fight. Additionally, as the memorandum suggested, “It is possible that Hassan has concluded that armed intervention will provoke favourable international mediation.” How Hassan might have reached this dangerous conclusion is explained. A subsequent CIA analysis added: “King Hassan apparently is being egged on by his military commanders.”
Kissinger quickly sent a letter to Hassan calling for his restraint, but did not receive a reply until 14 October. He assured the US government that he would not attack Spain, though he would not make the same promise for anyone opposing his ambitions.
The morning after the release of the ICJ’s opinion and the announcement of the Green March, Kissinger briefed President Ford and the National Security Advisor, Lieutenant-General Brent Scowcroft, in the Oval Office:

Kissinger: Morocco is threatening a massive march on Spanish Sahara. The ICJ gave an opinion which said sovereignty had been decided between Morocco and Mauritania. That basically is what Hassan wanted.
The President: What is likely to happen?
Kissinger: Spain is leaning to independence. That is what Algeria would like. I will talk to the Moroccan Ambassador today.
The court, as noted above, had said something quite the opposite. Perhaps the only other person in the world who shared Kissinger’s highly partisan reading of the ICJ’s opinion was Hassan.
Following Hassan’s announcement of the Green March, Spain asked the Security Council to stop Hassan. The response, considered weak by the Spanish government, had forced Madrid to pursue a bilateral dialogue with Morocco. Visiting Hassan on a pre-scheduled trip to discuss the Arab-Israeli conflict, the Assistant Secretary of State, Alfred Atherton, reported on 22 October that Morocco and Spain had reached a mutually face-saving agreement to allow a march. They would then to use the UN to legitimate a Moroccan takeover through a controlled plebiscite, thereby allowing Spain to gracefully bow out.
In search of a formula

Even Kurt Waldheim was in on it. Speaking with Moynihan on 29 October, Waldheim said he had proposed a solution based on the “West Irian precedent.” (In 1961 Indonesia invaded Western New Guinea, now West Irian Jaya, before the Dutch colony could achieve independence. The territory was placed briefly under UN administration in 1962, and passed to Indonesia in 1963. A controversial self-determination referendum formalised Indonesian sovereignty in 1969.)
Morocco would abandon the march if Spain agreed to withdraw in early 1976; then an interim UN administration would then organise a referendum. Waldheim admitted that it would be difficult to find “some formula regarding consulting the people” agreeable to Hassan, but as a CIA brief noted at that time, “The Secretary General reportedly had earlier thought that Morocco would acquiesce to his proposal provided the UN trusteeship were ‘manipulated’ so that the territory would soon be turned over to Rabat and Nouakchott.”
On the morning of 3 November Ford, Scowcroft and Kissinger met in the Oval Office where, among other issues, the impending Green March was discussed. At this meeting it appears that Ford finalised the basic outline of US policy towards the brewing crisis based on a proposal made by Kissinger:

Kissinger: ... On the Spanish Sahara, Algerian pressure has caused the Spanish to renege. Algeria wants a port and there are rich phosphate deposits. The Algerians have threatened us on their Middle East position. We sent messages to the Moroccans yesterday. I think we should get out of it. It is another Greek-Turkey problem where we lose either way. We could tell Hassan we would entirely oppose him; that might stop it but it would make us the fall guy. Or we could force Waldheim forward.
President: I think the UN should take on more of these problems. God damn, we shouldn’t have to do it all and get a bloody nose.
Kissinger: The UN could do it like West Irian, where they fuzz the “consulting the wishes of the people”, and get out of it.
President: Let’s use the UN route.
The morning after Ford apparently set US policy, Kissinger presented a very short brief on the Sahara crisis to the same audience:

The Sahara is a mess. The Spanish Army is reluctant to appear being kicked out. Juan Carlos said Morocco could have the Sahara if they would call off the march, but they couldn’t.
On 5 November, the eve of the march, Kissinger and his staff discussed the crisis at an early morning meeting. Atherton began by summarising the latest diplomatic activity and started referring to a Spanish proposal. He was cut off before revealing the substance of the “reasonable suggestion.” Kissinger interrupted to say, “Just turn it over to the UN with a guarantee it will go to Morocco.” The Assistant Secretary of State for European affairs, Arthur Hartman, then mentioned a proposal to “escort” some of the marchers across the border, only to have Atherton jump in to give these instructions: “Let the marchers go into it ten kilometres, and let a token go all the way to [Al-‘Ayun], and having done this, turn around and go back. This has been carried back to Hassan.”
Noting that “it is coming down to the crunch,” Atherton went on to hint that this arrangement might not satisfy all Moroccans. “Hassan’s problem,” Atherton explained, “is that if he seems to cave very much, he is in difficulty at home, of course.” Kissinger then asked, “But he is going to get the territory, isn’t he?” To which Atherton replied,

Well, he wants it 100 percent guaranteed. I think he is getting less than that - but he is getting probably the most he can hope for now in the position that the Spanish have taken. He may ...
Secretary Kissinger: He is getting the most he can hope...
Atherton: In the way of a promise that it will come out in the end the way he wants, after going through the UN procedure. It isn’t a 100 percent guarantee. But I don’t see that there is any more he can hope for or will have any support from anybody else.
A highly scripted affair

Hartman then referenced a cable in which the Spanish government was “very explicit” about “what they would do in influencing” a referendum (ie, in Morocco’s favour).
That the march went forward without a snag, and that Spain never raised the issue of Morocco’s military invasion in the northeast of the territory, points towards a highly scripted affair. For Washington, however, there was some question as to whether or not things would turn out in Hassan’s favour.
The day after Hassan announced the withdrawal of his marchers from the Spanish Sahara, Kissinger, Scowcroft and Ford met in the Oval Office in the morning of 10 November. According to the notes of the meeting, Kissinger told them,

Hassan has pulled back in the Sahara. But if he doesn’t get it, he is finished. We should now work to ensure he gets it. We would work it through the UN [to] ensure a favourable vote.
The meeting notes do not register a response from either Ford or Scowcroft. Given Moynihan’s memoirs, we know what happened next.
At a similar meeting on the following day, 11 November, the following exchange took place:

President: How is the Spanish Sahara going?
Kissinger: It has quieted down, but I am afraid Hassan may be overthrown if he doesn’t get a success. The hope is for a rigged UN vote, but if it doesn’t happen...
Unfortunately for Kissinger, the UN was unable to hold a “rigged” vote during the tripartite transitional administration, which saw half the indigenous population flee into the desert before Spain’s withdrawal in February 1976. Denied ballot box, the Polisario attempted to achieve self-determination through the gun.
In 1991 the international community again promised the Western Saharans a chance at self-determination. Though this time Hassan attempted to rig the vote by flooding the polls with non-Saharans. Rather than force his successor, King Mohammed, to accept that this effort had failed, the US supported James Baker’s 2003 proposal to allow Moroccan settlers to participate in the vote. Unwilling to trust even its own citizens, Morocco rejected this proposal. Again denied their birthright, the occupied Western Sahara saw the largest pro-independence demonstrations yet, followed by a harsh crackdown. Recent secretary-general’s reports note increased cease-fire violations on both sides.
A month after the crisis, Kissinger met with Algerian foreign minister-now president-Abdelaziz Bouteflika. He explained the paradox of US foreign policy to Bouteflika, who he called an enfant terrible. “To prevent the Green March,” Kissinger explained, “would have meant hurting our relations with Morocco, in effect an embargo.” Bouteflika countered, “You could have done it. You could stop economic aid and military aid.” Kissinger offered a rejoinder: “But that would have meant ruining our relations with Morocco completely.” Bouteflika persisted, and insisted that the US government favoured one side. “I don’t think we favoured one side,” Kissinger said. “We tried to stay out of it.” But, as he added, “To take [your] position, we would have had to reverse positions completely.”
In 1976 the renowned scholar of international law, Thomas Franck, rightly described US policy during the crisis as “an act of political expediency grounded in East/West political alliances.” Much the same could be said about US’s “neutral” policy towards the Western Sahara conflict today, if not other conflicts involving suppressed national self-determination. The only difference between 1975 and 2005 is the justificatory geo-political context, from cold war to war on terror, where we are led to believe that our avowed neutrality is a luxury we cannot yet afford. But the persistence of the Western Sahara conflict demonstrates the shortcomings of US’s “neutral” Saharan policy. Not that Washington has realised this in the past 30 years.

by Jacob Mundy (http://mondediplo.com/_Jacob-Mundy_)
Jacob Mundy is coauthor, with Stephen Zunes, of Western Sahara: War, Nationalism and Conflict Irresolution (Syracuse University Press, forthcoming)

http://mondediplo.com/2006/01/12asahara




http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=whAfTVDirdM


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xVT1yeXsl1Y&feature=mfu_in_order&list=UL


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m09mf5hTI28&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyxIRhQ4mMU&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dmSzIsHe0g&feature=related


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WP7ohP-eF1Q&feature=related

Ninjahedge
November 10th, 2010, 08:05 AM
Dr T, that is a canned response.

As soon as I read "You're wrong" all I had to do was start scrolling.

Dr T, the one thing you must learn is that people do not want a dissertation pasted on a post when they are having a conversation. You can post the link to your information and put some pieces up here, but doing this is not going to convince anyone of your side of the discussion.

Dr.T
November 10th, 2010, 10:07 AM
Dr T, that is a canned response.

As soon as I read "You're wrong" all I had to do was start scrolling.

Dr T, the one thing you must learn is that people do not want a dissertation pasted on a post when they are having a conversation. You can post the link to your information and put some pieces up here, but doing this is not going to convince anyone of your side of the discussion.


Okay, if you want to discuss with me about Western Sahara I haven't any problem. I've uploaded in the last post a little information and videos about 'Green March' during 1075/6 because I thought that Americans do not knows something about the real politic situation in Western Sahara.

I know very well this topic because I have traveled to Tindouf refugee camp in 2002 (in Algeria's border, at Sahara zone) where Moroccan government expelled native inhabitants of Western Sahara to steal their land and fill the country with Moroccan settlers. I know very well what the real situation of native inhabitants of Western Sahara are living after Morocco deported to them untill interior of the Sahara desert: the same as the Palestinians of Gaza...

The Americans were wrong in 1976 ... and now they are responsible for crimes and genocide committed in the Western Sahara for 35 years. Today there are only three provinces where governing democracy in Africa: South Africa, the Canary Islands and the cities of Ceuta and Melilla ... The future of Western Sahara in 1976 was situated between 2 options: become an independent nation (after a plebiscite among its inhabitants) or become a Spanish region (Autonomous Community) like the Canary Islands, Andalusia Murcia, Valencia, Aragón, Madrid, Catalonia... so on. The genocide began when Morocco had decided to occupy and annex the Western Sahara with the help of his political and military ally, a country called United States of America ...

Today Americans are guilty of genocide of Western Sahara people and the pillaging of the natural resources of the former colony. How do you hold a referendum 35 years later when the Government of Morocco has filled the territory with settlers from Marocco, deported to half of the native inhabitants inside Sahara Desert (in Algeria zone) and Marocco's troops have destroyed Spanish archives with the identity, names and filiation of native population ?


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gRVrZWb1z-4


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fI7JgefsHcU&feature=related

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refugee_camps_in_Tindouf_Province,_Algeria

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Western_Sahara

ZippyTheChimp
November 10th, 2010, 10:57 AM
The role of the US government in the October-November 1975 crisis has been the subject of much speculation and little fact. With what scant, and often circumstantial, evidence has been available, various observers have accused the US of a range of reactions from passivity to complicity.
Not that claims of complicity were totally baseless.Really.


our country was emerging from a dictatorship for 40 years and entered a new democratic period (in those days Spain was being drafted the new Constitution Act).I like the way you rationalize the removal of your country from any responsibility, then and now. The USA had just gone through a massively divisive war, so I'll take a pass too.


do you remember the James Baker's plan for Western Sahara ?).James Baker was a special envoy to the United Nations. The Baker Plan(s) were presented to the United Nations. Baker resigned his position due to refusal by the United Nations to act on his initiatives. The plan is now in limbo in the United Nations.


Marocco is a genocide nation and US is its partner in Western Sahara since 1976Last time I looked, Spain was a member of the UN, a Security Council member for 8 years. Who else do you want to add to the list of partners of genocide - the permanent Security Council; all members since 1976; the entire UN membership?


Today there are only three provinces where governing democracy in Africa: South Africa, the Canary Islands and the cities of Ceuta and Melilla UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, France...should I go on?


The Americans were wrong in 1976 ... and now they are responsible for crimes and genocide committed in the Western Sahara for 35 years.The USA made decisions in the 1970s based on prevailing geo-politics. They acted in their self-interest, which is what all countries do, including Spain. So 35 years later, the USA is solely responsible for everything that's gone wrong during that time. Sorry, but Spain occupied the territory for 90 years, and it's not the fault of the USA that Spain was a dictatorship for 40 years.

You didn't answer my question: What do you want the USA to do? Whatever it is, if it doesn't work out, sanctimonious people will blame us for the next 35 years.

Ninjahedge
November 10th, 2010, 01:22 PM
Dr. T, It seems like you are trying to put all of the problems on the backs of a country not directly responsible for it.

You are like what a lot of people are in the world, looking for some larger power to blame to remove the onus of responsibility from any other that would have to sacrifice much in order to right the wrongs performed by those within the countries borders much more than any from without.

I realize your English is not the best, but sayingthat the US was solely responsible for the change in regime 35 years ago and is therefore responsible for every thing that has happened (that is bad, I am sure that EVERYTHING has not been bad, but when starting a campaign against a people, you rarely point out their beneficial contributions), that that blame is not 100% warranted.

I doubt that many here would deny the attrocities committed or the wrongs being done in that region, but pointing fingers and crying for blood money is just not right either.

ZippyTheChimp
November 10th, 2010, 02:05 PM
Maybe Obama can draft a sternly worded letter to the King of Morocco.

He can take some cues from the Spanish government. Two recent communiques from Spain on the subject of Morocco:

March 6, 2010 love letter at the close of the EU-Morocco Business Summit (http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/Presidente/Intervenciones/ConferenciasdePrensa/06032010_EUMorocco_BusinessSummit.htm)

Sept 20, 2010, New York meeting between King of Morocco and Spanish PM (http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/Presidente/Intervenciones/Otros/20092010_AfterMeetingWithKingOfMorocco_UNHq_NYC_US .htm)


This real progress has come alongside increased commercial relations with the European Union. Since 2000, which was when the Association Agreement between the European Union and the Kingdom of Morocco came into force, European exports to Morocco have increased 84% to exceed eight thousand million euros while imports from Morocco to Europe have amounted to 14,500 million euros, 36% more than in 2000. And Europe now represents 60% of total trade for Morocco.

...

Morocco is our second largest export market outside of the European Union, after the United States, with a volume that exceeds 3,000 million euros per year, and imports from Morocco already amount to some 2,400 million euros per year.
Oh yeah, a really good idea for the USA to jump right into this.

Dr.T
November 11th, 2010, 06:18 AM
Really.

I like the way you rationalize the removal of your country from any responsibility, then and now. The USA had just gone through a massively divisive war, so I'll take a pass too.

James Baker was a special envoy to the United Nations. The Baker Plan(s) were presented to the United Nations. Baker resigned his position due to refusal by the United Nations to act on his initiatives. The plan is now in limbo in the United Nations.

Last time I looked, Spain was a member of the UN, a Security Council member for 8 years. Who else do you want to add to the list of partners of genocide - the permanent Security Council; all members since 1976; the entire UN membership?

UK, Germany, Spain, Italy, France...should I go on?

The USA made decisions in the 1970s based on prevailing geo-politics. They acted in their self-interest, which is what all countries do, including Spain. So 35 years later, the USA is solely responsible for everything that's gone wrong during that time. Sorry, but Spain occupied the territory for 90 years, and it's not the fault of the USA that Spain was a dictatorship for 40 years.

You didn't answer my question: What do you want the USA to do? Whatever it is, if it doesn't work out, sanctimonious people will blame us for the next 35 years.

It's easy to talk about the problems of the colonies when you're American... What is the last colony that exists in Europe? GIBRALTAR, since the Treaty of Utrecht in 1783. Are Spain and United Kingdom partners in EU and military allies in NATO? How many British citizens residing or visiting Spain every year? I think you do not understand the problem, Zippy...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Utrecht

Spain during 20th century had two colonies in Africa: Equatorial Guinea and Western Sahara. Since 1968 (during the government of General Franco) Equatorial Guinea is an independent nation ... do not forget Zippy. Why not Western Sahara? The answer is easy: the problem of Western Sahara in 1975 was the same that exists today. Western Sahara is the exit to the Atlantic Ocean to Algeria and, on the other side, Morocco wanted to invade the Western Sahara not to be surrounded on all borders for Algeria and seize the country's phosphate reserves. The problem was not Spain, the problem was Algeria and Morocco ... the same as today.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_Guinea

Was a self-determination referedum a good solution to Western Sahara in 70s ?... The answer is not, because Spain could not leave the country in 1975. Wester Sahara is a large territory (similar extension to Marocco) with a population of only 700,000 inhabitants in 70s and without army. Don't forget that many of sahrawis are berebers and they live like nomads in the Sahara desert: saharwis are like gipsy... because they are a people, but not a nation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahrawi_people

I respect your ideas, but you must try to understand mine. The problem arose when in 1975 the Kingdom of Marrruecos started the 'Green March' over Western Sahara. The United States supported the request of Morocco and Western Sahara today is a militarily occupied country where native people is living a genocide. Is Sahrawi people better in 2010 than in 1975? The answer is not ... Morocco has no sovereignty of Western Sahara, they can only be there to defend the territorial integrity of the colony and to hold a self-determination referendum. Why Morocco is signing greats contracts with American and French companies to exploit the natural resources of Western Sahara? Are these contracts legal? The answer is not again. The American companies are violating (with the permission of the White House) international laws and UN resolutions. Morocco is not the holder of the sovereignty of Western Sahara (not a province of Morocco) and can not sign contracts to plunder the natural resources of phosphates, petroleum and fishing in the Western Sahara. The United States supported Morocco's military occupation of Western Sahara in 1975, have continued to maintain for 35 years and today are responsible for the genocide of the Sahrawi people. American companies illegally exploit the natural resources of Western Sahara in violation of UN resolutions and sell weapons to Morocco to kill native inhabitants of Western Sahara... For example, Kosmos Energy:

http://www.kosmosenergy.com/morocco.html

http://www.vest-sahara.no/files/pdf/un_legal_opinion_Corell_olaeng.pdf

http://www.havc.se/res/SelectedMaterial/20081205pretoriawesternsahara1.pdf

Let's talk a minute about an international criminal named James Baker. Mr. Baker suggested 2 solutions to the problem of Western Sahara: the first was to cut the country into three parts (best for Morocco, as was natural in someone who is hired by the King of Morocco) and the second was to hold the self-determination referendum in Western Sahara ,.... but... Who had the right to vote? The proposal by Mr. Baker was to acknowledge that settlers (introduced illegally by Morocco in Western Sahara since 1976) could vote in the referedum. Today Moroccan settlers constitute the majority population of the Sahara Ocidental, because the King of Morocco (with the consent of United States) has killed Sahrawi people or been deported to refugee camps in Algeria. All Baker's plans were illegal and were designed to break the international rules and UN resolutions to defend the Marocco interests in Western Sahara, the ally of US in North Africa


About the presence of Spain in UN Security Council. The Western Sahara is not a problem in Spain since 1976, because the U.S. was determined to convince us to go out there. For Spanish is only a legality issue as Kosovo, Afghanistan or Iraq: today Western Sahara is a genocide and the guilty have got name. Do you remember what happened between Spain and Morocco during the years when my country was a member of the Security Council? Morocco attacked Spain and tried to invade our territory (island of Pejeril, nearby of Ceuta). Who was defended to Spain? Nobody, but don't worry because our Army can destroy Marocco en only 3 days (Marocco has not Air Force and Navy).


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXYKEgLinXI


Lastly, about trade agreements between Spain and Morocco. Common agricultural policy is set by Brussels, Spain is a staunch ally of its partners in Europe and always looks for the general interest of all European nations. The rest of the business in Morocco today are: exploit the natural resources of Western Sahara and illegal trafficking of drugs (such as hashish) and people trying to reach Europe from Africa. The difference between income per capita of Spanish and Moroccan is the largest in the world between two countries are neighbors (about 500% plus than the difference between Mexico and the United States)

Ninjahedge
November 11th, 2010, 09:18 AM
DT, again, James Baker was not the President, he was a member of the UN.

As you may have seen, the UN is a representative body that has little actual power.

Second, you still only point out a political support of a regime over 35 years ago, but somehow blame the US for all the problems that ensued afterwords.

Third, you seem to think that the US can, and SHOULD come in and do something militaristic in order to solve everything, ignoring the global economic structure that Zip pointed out.

You can't just go in with a big stick and demand things go your way. It just does not work that way.

So again, while many of us will agree that what has been done at times by certain individuals in that area are questionable and should be answered for, it is NOT the responsibility of the US to do so. Or, at least, as you are seemingly suggesting, that it is ALL our fault and ALL our responsibility.

The most the US should do is support an international coalition to correct things, but it is not the US's responsibility to be the controlling body and major supporting force (like our current bungled job in Iraq).

ZippyTheChimp
November 11th, 2010, 09:26 AM
It's easy to talk about the problems of the colonies when you're American... What is the last colony that exists in Europe? GIBRALTAR, since the Treaty of Utrecht in 1783. Are Spain and United Kingdom partners in EU and military allies in NATO? How many British citizens residing or visiting Spain every year? I think you do not understand the problem, Zippy...This has nothing to do with the USA.


Is Sahrawi people better in 2010 than in 1975? The answer is notAnd this is solely an American problem? Wait, the answer follows.


Why Morocco is signing greats contracts with American and French companies to exploit the natural resources of Western Sahara? Are these contracts legal? The answer is not again.So now it's the USA and France who are responsible. But of course, not your country.

Other examples:
http://www.afrol.com/articles/25697
http://www.fishelsewhere.eu/index.php?cat=180&art=1134

What's the point if you're going to search around and cherry-pick only what suits your argument.


Let's talk a minute about an international criminal named James Baker.
If you've already pronounced him a criminal, what's there to talk about?


Morocco attacked Spain and tried to invade our territory (island of Pejeril, nearby of Ceuta). Who was defended to Spain? Nobody, but don't worry because our Army can destroy Marocco en only 3 days.I hope you're not trying to impress me with military prowess. That's ironic.


Lastly, about trade agreements between Spain and Morocco. Common agricultural policy is set by Brussels, Spain is a staunch ally of its partners in Europe and always looks for the general interest of all European nations.So now it's the USA and the EU nations minus Spain who are responsible?


The rest of the business in Morocco today are: exploit the natural resources of Western Sahara and illegal trafficking of drugs (such as hashish) and people trying to reach Europe from Africa. The difference between income per capita of Spanish and Moroccan is the largest in the world between two countries are neighbors (about 500% plus than the difference between Mexico and the United States)This has nothing to do with the USA.

---------------------------------------

Sorry Dr. T, but as an American, when I read stuff like this:
Marocco is a genocide nation and US is its partner in Western Sahara since 1976, don't forget Zippy !...posted by a Spaniard several times in this thread...

when the reality of the partner of the genocide nation Morocco is...

From WTO and ITO, major trading partners with Morocco

Exports:
1. Spain (19.2%)
2. France (17.6%)
3. Brazil (7.1%)

Imports:
1. France (16.1%)
2. Spain (13.5%)
3. Italy (6.5%)
source: http://www.afribiz.info/?p=2872

...I can't take you seriously.

I've asked you several times in this thread what special expertise the USA should bring to bear to unilaterally solve this problem, with no answer. As an American citizen, I would request my government to pressure Spain, the EU, and the rest of the international community to stop trade with Morocco. I wonder how this would be received in Spain, where the PM sends love-letters to the genocide King of Morocco.

You say that it's easy for an American to talk about the "problems of the colonies." I suppose you mean that the problem is more complicated than we imagine. Maybe some Europeans like you have a simplistic view of the USA - big country, powerful military.

From this side of the pond, I see this as political laziness. Let the USA handle it; we can criticize them later when it doesn't work. Well, if I'm going to assume total responsibility for everything my country has been involved in, I'm putting North Korea at the top of the list. After all, we were the lead country in the war, so the current misery must be our fault. There are many times more people in North Korea than Western Sahara, so after we fix Korea, we'll attend to your problem.

In all seriousness, the EU is as big as the USA. Morocco is at your doorstep. Solve it yourselves.

Ninjahedge
November 11th, 2010, 10:03 AM
Lets be fair zip.

I think we can spare 1,000 troops and a tank to help out.

That is what the EU helps us out with, right? ;)

ZippyTheChimp
November 11th, 2010, 10:22 AM
So we've agreed on a military incursion.

Attention high school teachers: Adjust your geography curriculum. El Aaiún is about to enter the lexicon. :rolleyes:

Fabrizio
November 11th, 2010, 12:36 PM
Dr.T : No one in Europe cares about this.

And in these economic times no government is making economic accords with strings attached about human rights. No one can afford to.

----


If you've already pronounced him a criminal, what's there to talk about?

^ I do like this though. Does it apply to other threads too?

Dr.T
November 11th, 2010, 06:14 PM
Lets be fair zip.

I think we can spare 1,000 troops and a tank to help out.

That is what the EU helps us out with, right? ;)

... And Spanish Navy can contribute with 2 warships in Indian Ocean to help U.S. in its war against North Korea. Spanish people are generous with American people and... "its geo-strategic wars" ... hahaha ... :D

Where is North Korea? Is it cold there? Are there any good restaurants? Can you see there (on the Korean's TV) soccer matches of Real Madrid against Barcelona? Ok, no problems... the Spanish will go to North Korea as well...




EXPERTOS NORTEAMERICANOS CONFIRMARON EL HALLAZGO

Dos fragatas españolas abordan un barco cargado con misiles Scud

El navío norcoreano se localizó en el Océano Indico, cerca de Yemen


11/12/2002 E.P.




Dos buques de la Armada española interceptaron este lunes en el Océano Indico un mercante sin bandera procedente de Corea de Norte con 12 misiles Scud y piezas de misiles, confirmaron ayer martes, fuentes estadounidenses y españolas.
El barco mercante fue abordado el lunes, a unas 600 millas náuticas (1.100 kilómetros) del Cuerno de Africa, por dos buques de la Armada española, según fuentes de Washington.
Añadieron que había al menos 12 misiles Scud y piezas de misiles, que estaban en contenedores, escondidos en un cargamento de cemento.
El barco está ahora bajo control estadounidense, y un equipo de técnicos en explosivos examina los misiles y su estado, así como si tenían combustible o carga explosiva.
La interceptación del mercante, sin bandera y de nombre So-San , se produjo en el marco de la operación Libertad Duradera contra el terrorismo internacional que lidera Estados Unidos y en la que participan, entre otras, unidades de las Fuerzas Armadas españolas.
El dispositivo multinacional controla el tráfico comercial en la zona para evitar la expansión de la actividad terrorista.
El mercante estaba siendo vigilado desde que zarpó de Corea del Norte, indicaron fuentes estadounidenses.
El barco figuraba como sospechoso en el banco de datos de la Armada española, y cuando los mandos de la fragata Navarra le dieron el alto se negó a detenerse, según informaron fuentes militares españolas.
Tras los disparos de aviso realizados por la Navarra , y con el apoyo del buque español Patiño que se encontraba en la zona, se procedió a su detención.
A bordo del mercante, viajaban "tripulantes coreanos", quienes alegaron que transportaban cemento en contenedores metálicos.
El Scud es un misil de alcance intermedio, y fue usado por Irak contra Israel y Arabia Saudí en la guerra de 1991.


http://www.elperiodicodearagon.com/noticias/noticia.asp?pkid=29338



Spain is helping to USA in North Korea's conflict since 2002...

Dr.T
November 11th, 2010, 06:25 PM
So we've agreed on a military incursion.

Attention high school teachers: Adjust your geography curriculum. El Aaiún is about to enter the lexicon. :rolleyes:

Please, Zippy... don't forget VILLACISNEROS,... it was the capital during colonial times of Spain in Western Sahara... and will be more easy to pronounce for americans, because millions of americans can speak Spanish,... the second idiom in USA... :rolleyes:

http://www.sahara-mili.net/lugar/villac.htm

Dr.T
November 11th, 2010, 06:29 PM
Dr.T : No one in Europe cares about this.

And in these economic times no government is making economic accords with strings attached about human rights. No one can afford to



Yes, you're right, Fabrizio... Many times money is more important than dignity... in USA. Mr. James Baker is a good example about it...

Fabrizio
November 11th, 2010, 06:43 PM
No one cares about Spain except as a nice vacation spot. You have to kind of get over it.

lofter1
November 11th, 2010, 11:50 PM
Fairly amazing ^ considering all those mosque <> church incidents. :cool:

MidtownGuy
November 12th, 2010, 10:50 AM
Many times money is more important than dignity... in USA.
well OF course it is...and not just "in USA" :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Please tell me a country where it isn't, and I'd like to move there...it certainly isn't Spain. :p

The line "many times Americans are idiots" was also charming...substitute any other nationality in there too.

What is it with this guy and his anti-American fixation anyway? We all know power makes people do crappy things and that goes throughout history...this is especially true of Europeans who have NO room to talk. Don't get us started on Spain's despicable conduct through history...those douchebags went all around the world raping, pillaging, and colonizing. :cool:

Fabrizio
November 12th, 2010, 12:17 PM
Could we do without editorializing to the forum about posters? i.e. "What is it with this guy..." etc?

Let's discuss issues. And if a post is inappropriate flag it.

I agree that the line "many times Americans are idiots" is not good and should be noted.

As should lines like,"...no matter how bad it gets in the USA, we'll never suck as bad as that backed up cesspool of intolerance and ignorance: Italy."

Or:

"Way to many Europeans."
"^LOL. Some of them are really nice but many of them seem to have been raised by wolves. No manners whatsoever."

I really don't see the difference between, "many times Americans are idiots" and "many of them (Europeans) seem to have been raised by wolves".

Dr.T
November 12th, 2010, 07:10 PM
well OF course it is...and not just "in USA" :rolleyes::rolleyes:
Please tell me a country where it isn't, and I'd like to move there...it certainly isn't Spain. :p

The line "many times Americans are idiots" was also charming...substitute any other nationality in there too.

What is it with this guy and his anti-American fixation anyway? We all know power makes people do crappy things and that goes throughout history...this is especially true of Europeans who have NO room to talk. Don't get us started on Spain's despicable conduct through history...those douchebags went all around the world raping, pillaging, and colonizing. :cool:

Are you talking about me now?
I say 'MANY TIMES', not ' FOREVER',... Do you understand my English? :rolleyes:
I repeat: 'Many times Americans are idiots'... like at Western Sahara in 1975 or, for example, at Cuba in 1898...
Also I say: 'Many times Spaniards are idiots"... like currently in Cuba supporting Fidel Castro...
More questions MTG? :cool:

Ninjahedge
November 12th, 2010, 07:57 PM
DT, do you really understand us?

You seem to be blaming the US unjustly, assigning MUCH too much individual fault and responsibility to us for a country's decisions that we had no direct hand in.

MTG, agree with you, but you do come on strong. You could be saying that Gravity attracts and you would still find it hard to convince any detractors with that kind of Animus.

Fab, I agree that MTG has a bit of anti-european angst... but not any more than his angst with just about everything in life. He is equally annoyed by just about anything inlife and will shout to the sky to all that will listen about almost anything.

A LOT of what he says is 100% on, but a lot is not everything. We all know this, and you pointing it out is like sodium in water. The two are so close to each other, so in need of the other in some key ways that their interaction is always explosive.....

And that aint good inmost cases.

And me? I just comment about everything. ;)

Dr.T
November 12th, 2010, 08:28 PM
DT, do you really understand us?



Don't worry... MTG is my 'friend'... haaaah :rolleyes:
I've got a present to MTG: a traditional song in Canary islands and Western Sahara
'Palmero sube a la palma ' ( Palmer climb up palm tree) by Los Sabandeños... :D


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_grgvvWUQc

Sayonara, MTG !

Fabrizio
November 13th, 2010, 03:15 AM
Ninja: in this, your latest and perhaps most fascinating analysis of a forum member, you forgot to mention (among the sodium and water) that Midtownguy is an Art School Graduate.

MidtownGuy
November 13th, 2010, 11:16 AM
^talk about angst! and some sour grapes, it seems.

---

but hey,
Could we do without editorializing to the forum about posters?:rolleyes: see what a joke all of it is...

MidtownGuy
November 13th, 2010, 11:57 AM
@Mr T.:
Thanks for the little link... I just had the time to watch. Beautiful scenery but the music is a little hokey for my taste.;)

I've wanted to visit the Canaries for some time, but didn't take the opportunity when I traveled through Spain in 2007. I had considered hopping over to the islands but decided to see more of the Spanish mainland and save the Canaries for a future trip (perhaps combined with Morocco). I had read about the Canaries and was intrigued by their geography, being that they're part of the African continental plate with corresponding characteristics such as some of the vegetation. The Canaries are indeed stunningly beautiful. It's sad though, that the indigenous inhabitants were killed or assimilated when the Spanish conquered the islands.

MidtownGuy
November 13th, 2010, 01:31 PM
You seem to be blaming the US unjustly, assigning MUCH too much individual fault and responsibility to us for a country's decisions that we had no direct hand in.Agreed.


MTG, agree with you, but you do come on strong. You could be saying that Gravity attracts and you would still find it hard to convince any detractors with that kind of Animus.Noted.


Fab, I agree that MTG has a bit of anti-european angst... Ninj, I love (most of) Europe, in fact I choose to spend a total of about three to four months a year there. I have personal and professional attachments there and part of my heritage is there. But nothing is 100%. There are things about it that I love; there are things and places there that I don't love. Isn't that life, and everywhere really? I could say the same about New York City.


but not any more than his angst with just about everything in life. He is equally annoyed by just about anything inlife and will shout to the sky to all that will listen about almost anything.
:)well now you've swerved off the rails. Here's my state of mind at the moment... I just came back from 6 weeks of adventure traveling through Anatolia and the Aegean with my partner...we made new friends, ate delicious food, danced, spent days at the beach or exploring archeological sites, I sketched and photographed for my work...and now I'm happily at home going through all of the inspiring references I collected along the way. I've got enough shine right now to keep me dancing through life.:D

Although you, NH, have from time to time over the years expressed your disapproval, or shared with the forum your extreme annoyance with things or people... I haven't pretended to sum up your whole being, presuming to know your whole outlook on life. Most of the regulars on this forum share comments that range from satisfaction and humor to disapproval and annoyance on a number of things, and I'm no exception. The variety of my posts and photographic contributions over the years are my record of this.

I've come to enjoy your presence here on WNY, ninjahedge, and I think you're a likable enough guy based on what I can glean from internet posts. So let's save the pot-shot-pseudo-psychoanalytical condemnations for real scum like Harry Maclowe or Berlusconi ;) and not each other.


And me? I just comment about everything.bravo, and keep it coming NH...you help keep the place interesting.

Fabrizio
November 14th, 2010, 10:23 AM
Ninja re: post #27.

I'm not going to hand you BS and talk to you like you're a retarded child... the bottom line is this: I really don't need you explaining forum members to me.

I can figure them out for myself.

MidtownGuy
November 14th, 2010, 11:41 AM
^ uh huh, and editorialize 'em too.

Ninjahedge
November 15th, 2010, 08:35 AM
I'm not going to hand you BS and talk to you like you're a retarded child... the bottom line is this: I really don't need you explaining forum members to me.

^shrug^

You seem to be doing so well without it... :rolleyes:


I can figure them out for myself.

Then do something with it Mr Smarteypants!

Geez!

God!

I mean, come ON!!!!

Ninjahedge
November 15th, 2010, 08:35 AM
PS, MTG, good to hear you guys had fun. A bit jealous there myself, but what can I say that I have not already said in some way, eh? ;)

Dr.T
November 15th, 2010, 08:38 AM
@Mr T.:
Thanks for the little link... I just had the time to watch. Beautiful scenery but the music is a little hokey for my taste.;)

I've wanted to visit the Canaries for some time, but didn't take the opportunity when I traveled through Spain in 2007. I had considered hopping over to the islands but decided to see more of the Spanish mainland and save the Canaries for a future trip (perhaps combined with Morocco). I had read about the Canaries and was intrigued by their geography, being that they're part of the African continental plate with corresponding characteristics such as some of the vegetation. The Canaries are indeed stunningly beautiful. It's sad though, that the indigenous inhabitants were killed or assimilated when the Spanish conquered the islands.

The Canary Islands were discovered and incorporated into Castile Crown by Christopher Columbus during his first trip to America. The native inhabitants of Canary islands ('guanches') were assimilated by Spaniards. We (Spaniards) used to be married with the natives: thus was born the 'mestizo' race in America and other territories under Spanish Crown. Often accused Spanish of mass killings and murders of America natives, but this is part of a false legend ('Black Legend'). Large population deaths was resulted from epidemics arose because Europeans brought to America such diseases as measles, smallpox, cholera, scurvy, fever and other ... At that time prophylactic measures were minimal and, if in addition there were ways of mixed marriages of the population, then the risks increase exponentially.

About slavery in Spanish Empire, maybe you must read more about 'Valladolid debate' and study about who were Bartolomé de las Casas and Francisco de Vitoria...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Valladolid_debate

MidtownGuy
November 15th, 2010, 11:47 AM
False legend my nuts.
Columbus was a rapist and a mass murderer. The Spanish plundered and massacred across South America and the Caribbean. The Tainos were yet another group they viciously eradicated.

Just admit it Mr. T...the Spanish were filthy murderers in the New World. One of the most brutal eras in human history. It's just disgusting that you and your compatriots would try to whitewash it at this point.

Dr.T
November 15th, 2010, 12:43 PM
To analyze a historical question is necessary to do so from the keys and the circumstances of that particular historical moment. It's easy to say that '...this was a genocide', but you must read the problem from the historical coordinates of time, if we do a reading of a historical fifteenth century with the mentality and ideas of 21st the century, ... we will be wrong.

Spain emerged as a nation in 1492. Back then it was the strongest nation in Christendom because it had been fighting for 7 centuries against Islam to expel the Muslims who invaded Spain in the eighth century (year 711). Spain was a country with a massive military. Nobody in history has achieved what Spain did in 1492, defeating Islam. Only Muslims have been expelled from a territory that was under its control: Al-Andalus (the former name of Spain for Muslims).

That army born of centuries of war against Islam was the same who discovered America in those years and that is the reason for the cruelty of our military. Do not forget that the Muslim invasion of Spain was the biggest 'genocide' in the history of Europe: the Christians were murdered, tortured, raped women and children slaughtered for 7 centuries by the Muslims in Spain. You are a Muslim ... Are you going to apologize to the Spanish because your religion caused the greatest 'genocide' in the history of Europe with millions of innocent lives?

To me, Muslim invasion was not a genocide; the same for Spanish action in America during XV century. I'm sorry but I believe you're thinking about issues in History with mentality of 21st century...

Fabrizio
November 15th, 2010, 12:51 PM
The past is the past.

Who are the "filthy murders", the "rapists", the "plunderers" of today? Mmmmm....let's do a body count.

MidtownGuy
November 15th, 2010, 12:56 PM
Yes, and the past should be represented accurately, not whitewashed.

Fabrizio
November 15th, 2010, 01:03 PM
^ Ah yes, whitewashing.

(That's why that body count is so hard to do.)

Dr.T
November 15th, 2010, 01:06 PM
For me the important thing is worrying about the problems of our world to make it better: Is a genocide Moroccan occupation of Western Sahara today? It is a difficult question. I have doubts about it. The reason is that if I analyze the problem as a European, then I think the answer is yes. But if I analyze the problem as a Moroccan, then I have doubts. What is the social mentality of a country like Morocco today? I think a country like Morocco is still in 1800 compared to Europe or USA, ... that's problem

MidtownGuy
November 15th, 2010, 01:16 PM
re: that body count...Absolutely, fabby. It's despicable no matter who is doing it. I accept and admit fully what the US government has done from the Trail of Tears to the Iraq War, from Plan Colombia to its complicity in Israel's murderous colonization and genocide of Palestinians. I have no hesitation in condemning the atrocities of my government.

Neither should other people.

Dr.T
November 15th, 2010, 01:28 PM
The question for me is what citizens can do to change these problems. What is more important for Europeans and Americans? Is it better to allow slaughter on Western Sahara if it helps to improve economic and social Morocco or is it better to start a military intervention in Western Sahara to prevent genocide?

MidtownGuy
November 15th, 2010, 01:41 PM
The horrible situation in Western Sahara indicates some sort of stronger pressure on Morocco must be made from the community of nations. Unfortunateley, the issue is off the radar here for most Americans (like just about everything else that happens in Africa) so the first step is trying to spread the word (this thread is a good example of that) so people in other parts of the world are more aware, and an international campaign to draw attention to the region can be organized. Advocating for various pressures on Morocco, before military intervention is proposed? I don't know.

MidtownGuy
November 15th, 2010, 01:48 PM
I was reading more about the issue and came across this story filed today...very alarming...

Activists Report Moroccan Genocide in Western Sahara (ttp://www.plenglish.com/index.php?id=238106&task=view&option=com_content)
Prensa Latina

Madrid, Nov 15 (Prensa Latina) Two activists who remain hidden for several days in the capital of the Western Sahara, El Aaiun, reported on Monday on the genocide the Moroccan government is carrying against the Sahrawi people.

In a communiqué sent to the press through a video posted on the Youtube website, Spaniard Isabel Terraza and Mexican Antonio Velazquez demanded the immediate intervention of the United Nations to guarantee human rights for the Sahrawi people.

Fearing for their lives, Terraza and Velazquez have been in hiding since last Monday, after the brutal attack carried out by the Rabat Army on a camp of 20,000 people in Gdaim Izik, about 15 kilometers from El Aaiun.

In a two-minute message to the media, the two activists requested the urgent presence of the Red Cross to tend to the victims of Moroccan repression, and for the world community to condemn that attack on civilians.

The two said they were witnesses of a genocide carried out by the Moroccan government against the Sahrawi civilian population in the occupied Sahrawi capital.

"They want to kill us because we are bearing witness to the whole world," said the activists, who are asking international organizations to stop what they considered a massacre.

They noted that thousands of Sahrawis are in the same situation or worse, because "Moroccan police and soldiers entered their homes by force and tortured them and many of them died as victims of that torture," they said.

Terraza recalled that since the violent dismantling of Gdaim Izik camp on Nov. 8, security troops of the Moroccan government have been repressing the civilian population on the streets of the occupied Sahrawi capital and in their homes.

hr/rab/abo/edu Modificado el ( lunes, 15 de noviembre de 2010 )

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2010, 01:58 PM
To analyze a historical question is necessary to do so from the keys and the circumstances of that particular historical moment. It's easy to say that '...this was a genocide', but you must read the problem from the historical coordinates of time, if we do a reading of a historical fifteenth century with the mentality and ideas of 21st the century, ... we will be wrong.This is true, but in a comparison with the present, we tend to set the present as some sort of ideal. It's hardly that.


The question for me is what citizens can do to change these problems. What is more important for Europeans and Americans? Is it better to allow slaughter on Western Sahara if it helps to improve economic and social Morocco or is it better to start a military intervention in Western Sahara to prevent genocide?So applying, as you say, historical perspective to the 21st century:

The realities of the world today lead me to believe it's better to improve the social and economic standing of Morocco than start another war.

The cold dispassionate truth.

ablarc
November 15th, 2010, 02:32 PM
^ Forgive me Zippy, but this is Realpolitik bullshit.

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2010, 02:53 PM
Well explain.

Or do you think your condensed pearls-of-wisdom are enough?

ablarc
November 15th, 2010, 03:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realpolitik

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2010, 03:11 PM
Oh, another pearl. How unexpected.

I know what the term means. Try relating it to this discussion, and refrain from bullshit.

ablarc
November 15th, 2010, 03:36 PM
The realities of the world today lead me to believe it's better to improve the social and economic standing of Morocco than start another war.

The cold dispassionate truth.
^ There's the Realpolitik. What do you want me to say?

Think Henry Kissinger. Maybe Realpolitik is right. It is what it is.

Ninjahedge
November 15th, 2010, 03:38 PM
ABL, IOW Zip was taking the suggestion as presented by DT and throwing it back at him full frontal.

If DT keeps saying we have to measure things by different standards (such as what the spaniards did in their day to their time and not our own) then it should also be far to do the same to what is being done today.

I BELIEVE both he and MTG are not saying they approve of either, but at the same time do not believe that the US should be held responsible for being the worlds police force.

IOW, yes what they are doing is wrong, but we should not be thought of as the worlds only remedy. Doing so in the same manner of Iraq would be disasterous. Does that mean nothing should be done? No, but enough with the burden on the shoulders of the already damned.

I also agree a bit with zippy here. Crying "bull" and posting wiki-isms aint kosher. Lets see if we can get some actual meat on the table instead of pre-manufactured substitutes.

ZippyTheChimp
November 15th, 2010, 03:48 PM
^
Don't bother. He knows the context, but you tend to forget what you've already posted when you parachute into a thread.

ablarc
November 15th, 2010, 04:03 PM
Zippy, on further consideration, I think you're right. Our hearts should stop bleeding for the world's oppressed.

It's certainly not practical.

Fabrizio
November 15th, 2010, 05:04 PM
You know, when I first saw the title to this thread I thought it said, "Western Sharia".

I thought: oh goody...

Dr.T
November 16th, 2010, 07:15 AM
This is true, but in a comparison with the present, we tend to set the present as some sort of ideal. It's hardly that.

So applying, as you say, historical perspective to the 21st century:

The realities of the world today lead me to believe it's better to improve the social and economic standing of Morocco than start another war.

The cold dispassionate truth.

My cold dispassionate truth is diferent... in this issue




Are Morocco And Algeria Gearing Up For Arms Race?

On March 2008, I reported on Morocco’s purchase of 24 F-16 Block 52+ fighter jets from Lockheed Martin at a cost of $2.4 billion dollars (read it here (http://cabalamuse.wordpress.com/2008/03/06/todays-fight-yesterdays-thinking/)). The purchase was in response to Algeria’s March 2006 $8 billion military and technical cooperation agreement with Russia $1.3 billion of which was allotted for the purchase of 29 single-seater MiG-29SMT fighters and six two-seater MiG-29UB fighters. Algeria terminated the contract in 2007 upon receipt of the first batch of MiG-29s which, after a technical inspection, were deemed defective and of inferior quality than stipulated. To redeem itself, Russia renegotiated the contract and offered Algeria new MiG-35 Fulcrum fighter aircraft and 16 Su-30 Flanker fighters. The Russian government also approved a $2.5 billion contract between Irkut Corporation and the Algerian government to supply the latter with 28 Su-30MKA fighters by 2010. In June 2009, The Algerian ministry of defense signed a contract with Agusta Westland, an Italian company of the Finmeccanica Group, to purchase 100 helicopters of various nomenclatures for its gendarmerie, police, and civil protection agency. The Finmeccanica Group is already committed to equip the Algerian navy with 6 AW101s helicopters and 4 Super Lynx 300 MK 130.

http://cabalamuse.files.wordpress.com/2009/09/f16i.jpg?w=397&h=232

On September 9, 2009, Morocco was able to secure congressional approval for the purchase of support equipment and weapons for the F-16C/D Block 50/52 in conjunction with its F-16 contract with Lockheed Martin. The package is valued at $187 million and includes 28 AGM-65D Maverick missiles, a tactical, air-to-surface guided missile designed for close air support, interdiction, and defense suppression mission against a variety of tactical targets. It is developed by Hughes Aircraft and Raytheon. An F-16 can carry up to 6 Mavericks. The Defense Security Cooperation Agency, a government entity that promotes military-to-military contacts in support of U.S. foreign policy and national security interests, has indicated that Morocco was also approved for the purchase of 28 M-61 vulcan cannons, a Gatling-style rotary gun produced by General Dynamics, and 60 enhanced Guided Bomb Unit-12 (GBU-12) Paveway II, a laser guided bomb (LGB) that utilizes a Mk82 500-pound general purpose warhead. Additionally, Morocco requested the installation of communications, air combat pods, targeting pods, ground stations, night vision goggles (NVGs), joint mission planning systems, and radar warning receivers. This latest procurement will increase the interoperability between the U.S. and Morocco and enhance asset capabilities in bi-lateral terrorism prevention operations in the region.

Earlier this year, a Moroccan air force delegation led by Colonel M’hamed Saufi toured Luke Air Force Base in Arizona. Personnel from Morocco’s Royal Air Force are currently being trained at Luke’s and 162nd Fighter Wing airbase in Tucson, Arizona on the mission support, maintenance of F-16 and the organizational elements involved in the base operations of a fighter wing, i.e., civil engineers and fire department, communications, logistics readiness, security forces, and base services. Morocco is currently building an air force base specifically designed to support F-16 operations.

It is worth noting that, with $5.4 billion worth of arms contracts, Morocco is the third top-buyer of military hardware and weaponry in the developing world in 2008, surpassed only by United Arab Emirates, with $9.7 billion in arms deals, and Saudi Arabia, with $8.7 billion. The United States holds 70.1 percent of the arms market; its arms sales in 2008 totaled $29.6 billion. Russia comes in a far second with $3.3 billion.

Considering that Morocco and Algeria are embroiled in a diplomatic dispute over “Western Sahara,” analysts are voicing serious concerns that the two countries are gearing up for an arms race that will upset the delicate status quo balance of the increasingly bifurcated Maghreb.

A. T. B. Copyright © 2009

http://cabalamuse.wordpress.com/2009/09/17/are-morocco-and-algeria-gearing-up-for-arms-race/




Who are supporting to Sahrawi people today ? Algeria & Spain

Why Algeria supports to Sahrawi people ? Because Western Sahara is the exit to Atlantic Ocean for Algeria... and Marocco is the historic enemy of Algeria in North Africa...

Who are supporting to Marocco in Western Sahara? USA & France

Why USA & France are supporting to Marocco ? Petrol & weapons business and Algeria is the enemy of USA in North Africa.

Who's the partner of Spain in North Africa ? The answer is easy again: Algeria

Why? MEDGAZ. To EU & Spain is most important Algeria gaz than Sahrawi petrol...

Do you know what's MEDGAZ?

http://www.medgaz.com/medgaz/pages/index-eng.htm

USA & France are trying to illegally exploit natural resources in Western Sahara with a goal: find a solution to Morocco, because Rabat needs buy weapons ... why? Because USA&France know that the fabulous gaz business will become to Algeria as a military power in 15 years and the government of Algiers could attack to Marocco to destroy it.

Who sells weapons to Algeria? Russia&Spain ...

What can we do if Algeria attack to Morocco? Support to Algeria because is our partner ...

The issue of Western Sahara is the first step of a new war in North Africa.
USA must change its 'realpolitik' in North Africa and try to look for deals with Algeria, because Marocco is the problem today. Marocco is out side reality. USA believe that Algeria is not a problem for them because is the partner of Spain, but maybe they are wrong because Marocco politicians are very agresive against Algeria, Spain, Mauritania and Sahrawi people.

The problem is King Mohamed VI, he is a crazy man... very dangerous !.

To me, the best solution would be 'eliminate' King Mohamed VI and look for a new politic system in Marocco...

ZippyTheChimp
November 16th, 2010, 11:52 AM
Who are supporting to Marocco in Western Sahara? USA & FranceAmazing that you continually ignore your country's support of Morocco. I'll just have to repeat myself:


From WTO and ITO, major trading partners with Morocco

Exports:
1. Spain (19.2%)
2. France (17.6%)
3. Brazil (7.1%)

Imports:
1. France (16.1%)
2. Spain (13.5%)
3. Italy (6.5%)

And let's not forget your government's love-letter to Morocco. (http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/Presidente/Intervenciones/ConferenciasdePrensa/06032010_EUMorocco_BusinessSummit.htm)


The problem is King Mohamed VI, he is a crazy man... very dangerous !.

To me, the best solution would be 'eliminate' King Mohamed VI and look for a new politic system in Marocco...So even though you are reluctant to say the actual words, may I assume you want a military solution?

OK, set it up for us. Will your country take up the lead position? I'm sure the US can contribute a support battalion, maybe armored.

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 05:13 AM
Amazing that you continually ignore your country's support of Morocco. I'll just have to repeat myself:


From WTO and ITO, major trading partners with Morocco

Exports:
1. Spain (19.2%)
2. France (17.6%)
3. Brazil (7.1%)

Imports:
1. France (16.1%)
2. Spain (13.5%)
3. Italy (6.5%)

And let's not forget your government's love-letter to Morocco. (http://www.la-moncloa.es/IDIOMAS/9/Presidente/Intervenciones/ConferenciasdePrensa/06032010_EUMorocco_BusinessSummit.htm)

So even though you are reluctant to say the actual words, may I assume you want a military solution?

OK, set it up for us. Will your country take up the lead position? I'm sure the US can contribute a support battalion, maybe armored.

Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..................
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.........................
and more blah, blah, blah, blah................... so on



Spain imports (January-April, 2010)



http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/import1-1.jpg



Spain exports (January-April, 2010)



http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/export1-1.jpg



On the other hand, I've never talked about military solution .... for the Western Sahara, although some countries, like United States, are making much money with the illegal exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara and selling modern weaponry to the government of Morocco...


E-L-I-M-I-N-A-T-E a person does not mean kill ... means R-E-M-O-V-E . Do not manipulate my words ...


Manipulation is the first step toward censorship. Do not try with me now. I understand that you defend a country like Morocco, now famous in the world to censor the international press for access to Western Sahara .... What a coincidence!... It seems that you like much censorship... :rolleyes:

--------------------------------------------------------------
To Fabrizio:

Please, Fabrizio... Can you send me a box of tomatoes from Italy to eat bolognese spagetti next week ? I don't wanna buy Moroccan tomatoes at the supermarket, otherwise Zippy&cia will say that I'm supporting a genocide in Western Sahara to buy products from Morocco... ;)

Ninjahedge
November 17th, 2010, 07:54 AM
ELIMINATE means to kill. It has meant that for the past 30+ years in most of pop culture and political circles.

Hell, even "remove from power" means "kill" in some areas.

And "blah blah blah" means you have no counter argument. The US is not the number 1, 2 OR 3 inporter or exporter of goods to Morocco. So calling on the US, and the US alone to do something is still insubstantial. Thee is nothing saying we should do it as our own initiative.


although some countries, like SPAIN, are making much money with the illegal exploitation of natural resources in Western Sahara and selling modern weaponry to the government of Morocco...
^THAT is more like it.

SPAIN should do something and ask for SUPPORT from other countries in the UN. That is all that is being said.

ZippyTheChimp
November 17th, 2010, 08:31 AM
Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah..................
blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah.........................
and more blah, blah, blah, blah................... so on



Spain imports (January-April, 2010)That's your answer?

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah


On the other hand, I've never talked about military solution ....You offered two alternatives. Other than that, no solution at all, except absolving Spain from any responsibility, while dumping it on the US. Oh I forgot, you sort of threw France in there, and hinted that Spain is only doing what the EU wants.


I understand that you defend a country like Morocco,Then you understand nothing at all. Nowhere have I defended Morocco. I've addressed your blaming everyone around you for this mess, while air-brushing your own country out of it.

The only news here about this situation is what is going on in the UN. There have been no protest marches or demonstrations in Washington or New York. As far as I know, nothing in any European capitals, except Madrid


Thousands protest in Spain against Morocco raid

Sat Nov 13, 3:21 pm ET

MADRID (AFP) – Thousands of people demonstrated in the Spanish capital Saturday to condemn a deadly Moroccan raid on a camp in the disputed Western Sahara, a territory they accused Morocco of occupying.

Demonstrators burnt Moroccan flags and chanted "Free Sahara now", demanding Morocco quit the Western Sahara which it annexed after Spanish settlers withdrew in 1975.

"Morocco out, 35 years of occupation is enough," they shouted along with, "Morocco guilty, Spain responsible".

The Spanish government was "looking away" and not condemning "Morocco's crimes" in the former colony, charged protest organisers the National Coordination of Associations in Solidarity with Sahara.

Demonstrators included the leaders of Spain's two main labour unions and actor Javier Bardem, an activist for independence of the Western Sahara, who called on Madrid and the European Union to condemn Morocco's actions.

Moroccan security forces raided a camp outside Western Sahara's main town of Laayoune at dawn on Monday, using water cannon to disperse the settlement housing 12,000 people.

Moroccan officials say 12 people were killed, including 10 from their security forces.

But the Polisario Front, which opposes Rabat's rule in Western Sahara, said Moroccan forces killed dozens of people and wounded more than 4,500 while clearing the camp set up four weeks ago apparently because of deteriorating living conditions locally.

Spain on Friday demanded an urgent explanation from Morocco about what happened.

"Spain believes the circumstances of these events should be clarified urgently, and this is what we relayed to the Moroccan government," Foreign Minister Trinidad Jimenez told a news conference Friday.

Spain also wanted to know what happened to a Spanish victim, Baby Hamadi Buyema, she said. Speaking in Alicante, his brother Lehmad Hamday Buyema said Moroccan police "brutally murdered" him in a car collision.

The foreign minister said Madrid regretted the loss of human life and expressed the solidarity of the Spanish people with the victims and their relatives.

But Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero said that national interests came first and relations with Rabat were a priority.

Conservative opposition leader Mariano Rajoy condemned this stance Saturday, telling a meeting in Catalonia that Zapatero was shunning his responsibilities as head of government.

Moroccan officials said Saturday that a total of 60 people face prosecution, six of them in a military court, in connection with the camp raid.

Prosecution services in Laayoune said 67 people accused of crimes against the security forces and destruction of public and private property had been arrested, seven of whom had been cleared.

Of the others 54 had been sent for questioning by an examining magistrate, while six would appear before a military judge, a statement said.

These six include Annaama Asfari, 40, a supporter of the Polisario Front.

The Polisario Front fought a guerrilla war against the Moroccan presence in the Western Sahara until the United Nations brokered a ceasefire in 1991. It wants a UN-organised referendum on self-determination, with independence as one of the options.

Morocco has so far rejected any proposal that goes beyond greater autonomy.

A third round of informal talks between the two sides on Western Sahara's future held near New York ended Tuesday with both sides only agreeing to meet again in December.

Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved

It's a little refreshing reading about a protest somewhere in the world without the obligatory "death to America."

Unlike you, I'm not trying to blame one country for the situation. Earlier in this thread, you remarked that Americans only care about money, while Spaniards have dignity.

Well, here's some advice from the land of capitalism. We have a saying here, "When you can't figure out what's going on, just follow the money." Here's the solution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trade_in_Morocco) you can't seem to find.

ZippyTheChimp
November 17th, 2010, 08:34 AM
ELIMINATE means to kill. It has meant that for the past 30+ years in most of pop culture and political circles.Reminds me of another saying for people who want others to do the dirty work:

"Grow a pair"

Fabrizio
November 17th, 2010, 01:02 PM
Please, Fabrizio... Can you send me a box of tomatoes from Italy to eat bolognese spagetti next week ? I don't wanna buy Moroccan tomatoes at the supermarket, otherwise Zippy&cia will say that I'm supporting a genocide in Western Sahara to buy products from Morocco... ;)

All kidding aside: support your local farmers.

----


BTW DrT:

Our national workers union issued a statement about this.... but notice where they place the resposibilty for action:

-Western Sahara: the Italian Government and the European Union should act against Morocco

In these hours, the army of Morocco attacked a camp near El Ayune (Western Sahara) where the Saharawi population gathered for days to claim the end of repression, the respect of human rights and a referendum for self-determination, according the United Nations resolutions. The army of Morocco is dismantling the camp as well.

Once again, Morocco - facing the growing peaceful mobilisation of Saharawi population - is using force and the brutal repression that does not spare even women and children. Following the initial information we received, hundred of injured were hospitalized and the clashes are going on.

The CGIL strongly asks an immediate and adequate action by the Italian Government and the European Union toward Morocco to urge the respect of human rights and to ensure that the Saharawi people express freely their political will, putting an end to the military and police repression.

Moreover, the United Nations should act to guarantee the respect of all resolutions by the Security Council and the General Assembly and to use their military mission in the Western Sahara (MINURSO) to guarantee the rights and the safety of the Saharawi people in the occupied territories by Morocco.

http://www.cgil.it/tematiche/Documento.aspx?ARG=INTL&TAB=0&ID=14975

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 03:18 PM
All kidding aside: support your local farmers.

----


BTW DrT:

Our national workers union issued a statement about this.... but notice where they place the resposibilty for action:

-Western Sahara: the Italian Government and the European Union should act against Morocco

In these hours, the army of Morocco attacked a camp near El Ayune (Western Sahara) where the Saharawi population gathered for days to claim the end of repression, the respect of human rights and a referendum for self-determination, according the United Nations resolutions. The army of Morocco is dismantling the camp as well.

Once again, Morocco - facing the growing peaceful mobilisation of Saharawi population - is using force and the brutal repression that does not spare even women and children. Following the initial information we received, hundred of injured were hospitalized and the clashes are going on.

The CGIL strongly asks an immediate and adequate action by the Italian Government and the European Union toward Morocco to urge the respect of human rights and to ensure that the Saharawi people express freely their political will, putting an end to the military and police repression.

Moreover, the United Nations should act to guarantee the respect of all resolutions by the Security Council and the General Assembly and to use their military mission in the Western Sahara (MINURSO) to guarantee the rights and the safety of the Saharawi people in the occupied territories by Morocco.

http://www.cgil.it/tematiche/Documento.aspx?ARG=INTL&TAB=0&ID=14975

Everyone is fighting in Spain against new agricultural agreement that Brussels intends to sign with Morocco in the coming months. Proponents of the agreement in European Union are French because they have major commercial interests in Morocco. That agreement would involve the loss of about 100,000 jobs in the agricultural sector in the Canary Islands, Andalusia, Murcia and Valencia. This agreement is a shame, French want to support Moroccan to steal the oil in Western Sahara. The French think that the other Europeans are stupid ...




La Fepex acusa al país alauita de saltarse los acuerdos sistemáticamente
El tomate marroquí amenaza el empleo de 100.000 trabajadores

Valcárcel lamenta que el asunto «pinta mal por no abordar los problemas desde su origen con contundencia».

Un nuevo golpe para la agricultura murciana que puede conllevar desastrosas consecuencias como el cierre de varias empresas dentro de nuestra Región. De esta forma, es como se valora en el panorama agrícola murciano la presentación ayer por parte de la Comisión Europea del proyecto legal del nuevo acuerdo en materia de agricultura con Marruecos, que deberá ser ratificado por la Unión Europea para su entrada en vigor, por lo menos en 2011. A grandes rasgos, los puntos más polémicos son los que tienen que ver con los incrementos de cuotas de frutas y verduras que desde Marruecos se podrá vender con un trato ventajoso a la Unión Europea, especialmente en el caso del tomate, lo que ha puesto en pie de guerra al sector agrario español.

A este respecto, el presidente del comité del tomate de la Federación Española de Asociaciones de Productores Exportadores de Frutas y Hortalizas, José Hernández, anunció ayer en Murcia que desde su formación se encuentran totalmente en contra de la ratificación del acuerdo de asociación con Marruecos porque debido al mismo van a desaparecer empresas de tomate del país.

Los representantes de las principales zonas productoras de tomate españolas (Murcia, Comunidad Valenciana, Andalucía y Canarias) manifestaron que el acuerdo propuesto desde la UE incluye concesiones al texto en vigor que acabarán con las producciones mediterráneas, ya que no afectan exclusivamente al tomate sino a otros productos. Por este motivo, los productores españoles de tomate acordaron ayer en Murcia comparecer ante el Parlamento Europeo el próximo 9 de noviembre para defender la necesidad de que se realice una reforma urgente de los precios de entrada para los productos procedentes de Marruecos.


http://www.larazon.es/noticia/8828-el-tomate-marroqui-amenaza-el-empleo-de-100-000-trabajadores



Italy knows what the real problem that exists in North Africa, because the Western Sahara conflict is a major problem in Algeria. The Algiers government does not agree to Morocco (with the support of France and the U.S.) illegally annexed the territory.

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 03:21 PM
ELIMINATE means to kill. It has meant that for the past 30+ years in most of pop culture and political circles.

Hell, even "remove from power" means "kill" in some areas.



Maybe 'remove' means 'kill' in some areas, but not in USA... Do you remember General Noriega in Panama?

lofter1
November 17th, 2010, 03:36 PM
They probably would have killed Gen. N if they thought they could get away with it. He crossed up the CIA and made some big time enemies. Those Bush guys know how to deal with that sort of thing (See: Iraq)

But then eternal confinement in Florida might be considered a fate worse than death.

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 03:43 PM
That's your answer?

blah, blah, blah, blah, blah



I replied to your arguments. You've uploaded to me commercial data from Morocco and I've uploaded to you commercial data from Spain in 2010 (January-April): Morocco isn't an important trading partner in Spain !

Our exports to Morocco represent only 1.8% in Spain, representing a turnover similar to that Spain has with Turkey and Poland.

http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/export1-1.jpg

Our imports from Morocco are below 1% of the total volume of trade by Spain.

http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/import1-1.jpg

More information: http://www.camempresas.com/ContentWeb/EmpresasCAM/estadisticas/nacionales/comercio/exterior/%C3%ADndice_sidN_961309_sid2N_961333_cidlL_28214_c tylL_-3_scidN_28214_utN_3.aspx

ZippyTheChimp
November 17th, 2010, 03:44 PM
Maybe 'remove' means 'kill' in some areas, but not in USA... Do you remember General Noriega in Panama?
Casualties as a result of the invasion of Panama and removal of Noriega


There is more agreement about the number of United States military casualties but less agreement on the number of civilian or Panamanian casualties. Reports suggest that the U.S. lost 23 troops,[24] and 325 were wounded (WIA). The U.S. Southern Command, at that time based on Quarry Heights in Panama, estimated the number of Panamanian military dead at 205, lower than its original estimate of 314.

There has been considerable controversy over the number of Panamanian civilian casualties resulting from the invasion. The Southern Command estimated that number at 200. Civilian fatalities include an American schoolteacher working in Panama, and Spanish freelance press photographer José Manuel Rodríguez. According to official Pentagon figures 516 Panamanians were killed during the invasion; however, an internal Army memo estimated the number at 1,000.

wikipedia


José Manuel Rodríguez = irony.

Fabrizio
November 17th, 2010, 03:51 PM
Italy knows what the real problem that exists in North Africa, because the Western Sahara conflict is a major problem in Algeria. The Algiers government does not agree to Morocco (with the support of France and the U.S.) illegally annexed the territory.


DrT:I don't think you got the gist of the CGIL's statement: the EU... ALL EU countries as well as the UN should be on this case.

And remember all western countries at the moment, in this econmy have agreements with Russia, China, Northern Africa etc.... human rights be damned. I'm not condoning that, but that's the way it is.

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 03:51 PM
They probably would have killed Gen. N if they thought they could get away with it. He crossed up the CIA and made some big time enemies. Those Bush guys know how to deal with that sort of thing (See: Iraq)

But then eternal confinement in Florida might be considered a fate worse than death.

+ 1
Yeah, you're right... but he was removed and is alive...
Allende (Chile) or Carrero Blanco (Spain) are dead,... don't forget !

ZippyTheChimp
November 17th, 2010, 03:52 PM
It's so easy when you highlight the ridiculous stuff.


Morocco isn't an important trading partner in Spain !The point is the other way around.

The idea is to put pressure on Morocco, not Spain.

And if trade isn't so important , why would your PM state that relations with Morocco are so important.

Apparently in Spain, dignity = hypocrisy

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 04:09 PM
DrT:I don't think you got the gist of the CGIL's statement: the EU... ALL EU countries as well as the UN should be on this case.

And remember all western countries at the moment, in this econmy have agreements with Russia, China, Northern Africa etc.... human rights be damned. I'm not condoning that, but that's the way it is.

I am committed to defending the Human Rights of Western Sahara's citizen. I send my money to the Sahrawi people every year to improve their lives in exile at Algeria (Tindouf). I have received many summers (at my home) children from Western Sahara. These children are starving and their parents have been killed. I am a Catholic Christian, but I've traveled to the mosque all weeks so that they could pray. For me they are like sons. It's my private war.

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 04:21 PM
It's so easy when you highlight the ridiculous stuff.

The point is the other way around.

The idea is to put pressure on Morocco, not Spain.

And if trade isn't so important , why would your PM state that relations with Morocco are so important.

Apparently in Spain, dignity = hypocrisy

http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/sahara2.jpg

A picture of Spanish Foreign Minister (Mrs. Trinidad Jiménez) during a recent concentration to defend Saharawi people on Madrid streets

ZippyTheChimp
November 17th, 2010, 04:23 PM
^
Sort of the definition of hypocrisy.

Dr.T
November 17th, 2010, 04:47 PM
^
Sort of the definition of hypocrisy.

Now you're right, Zippy !

Zapatero's government is an embarrassment to Spain. But Zapatero is not Spain and many people think differently about politics. So the Spanish press is trying to tell what happens in Western Sahara, while the government of Spain is in silent . Zapatero does all what says Obama from Washington. However, this story will have an impact on Morocco and its external relations, because the current situation in Western Sahara is an international shame.

Fabrizio
November 17th, 2010, 05:37 PM
I am committed to defending the Human Rights of Western Sahara's citizen. I send my money to the Sahrawi people every year to improve their lives in exile at Algeria (Tindouf).


I respect that. My comments are only to put things in perspective: Europeans should not be holding the US particularly culpable here. No more than their own governments.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 06:14 AM
I respect that. My comments are only to put things in perspective: Europeans should not be holding the US particularly culpable here. No more than their own governments.

If I've understood your reflection, then Spain is not guilty: General Franco died on November 20th, 1975. In that historical moment began the process of 'Spanish democratic transition' designed by Franco before he died. Franco's parliament met and proclaimed King Juan Carlos as new Head of State. The king dissolved former parliament and appointed a new one integrated by diferent members that only he ordered (most were from the former regime and other were moderate opponents to Franco). New Primer Minister was appointed by the King, a young leader from the Franco regime who had been director of public television, named Adolfo Suarez. New Parliament and President drafted the Constitution Act of 1978. This year was legalized the Communist Party and the Constitution Act was approved in a referendum by the Spanish citizen in December 1978. At this time were celebrated the first democratic elections in Spain: won a moderate right-wing politic party (called UCD), which it was chaired by Adolfo Suarez. In 1982 were celebrated the second democratic elections after new Constitution Act of 1978 and it won the moderate left-wing politic party (called PSOE), led by Felipe Gonzalez.

Franco was the mastermind of the democratic transition designed in Spain and the King its executor, but King was named by Franco in the 60's as his successor to do it so when he died. This was the problem of Western Sahara: Americans did not believe in 1975 that Spanish democratic transition could be done by this way, without any another civil war or serious internal problems in Spain. Europeans and Americans did not believe in 1975 that this politic design would be posible in Spain, but they were wrong !. Many times Americans and Europeans say Spanish democratic transition was a 'miracle'. The Spanish model has been repeated 20 years later in Chile, but Pinochet was not dead when the process started.

If you ask to Sahrawi people what they want to be in future, they will answer to you: or an independent nation or a region of Spain (Autonomous Community) as Canary Islands. Algeria feels the same, because Spain is its commercial partner and ally in the area and would facilitate access of Algerians to the Atlantic. Who are opposed? Moroccans, Americans and French. The Moroccan model is genocide and illegal plundering on Western Sahara. The U.S. problem in Western Sahara is simply : when they are wrong do not recognize the error and correct, because American diplomacy is very low . Saying these things is not to be anti-American, is to reflect on what role is playing U.S. in the last 40 years in North Africa: a sort of rubbish !

Americans and many Europeans never understood that General Franco was not a politician, he was a soldier. The democratic transition was began in Spain in the 60's, not 1975. General Franco thought and feel as a military strategist (he was a great soldier ...), not as a politician. History proved that Franco never wanted to perpetuate his politic system over time, he wanted a democratic solution for Spain after his death. Franco lived in Madrid with King Juan Carlos during 20 years and every day they met to discuss the problems of Spain. Franco explained many times to the king what had to do after he died to start a new historic phase in Spain. The King of Spain is the political heir of Franco. This is the key that Americans could not understand about Spain in 1975. Historically, Americans have had a misconception of Spain, because they have been a former British colony and they think that Spanish are evil and cruel. It is a mistake and it was what happened in the Western Sahara: everyone thought it was better to support and consent Morocco invasion on former Spanish colony. What's the result of this fatal error? we all know very well today: a genocide.

ablarc
November 18th, 2010, 07:05 AM
^ What is?

Ninjahedge
November 18th, 2010, 08:08 AM
Maybe 'remove' means 'kill' in some areas, but not in USA... Do you remember General Noriega in Panama?

Saddam Hussain was "removed from power" where "local authorities" "dealt with him".

And you were going so well with post #65, until you decided to slip the US back into the blame pot.....

Stick with the UN, which the US is a major component of. Stop trying to single the US out when we are not one of the main players in this.....

Ninjahedge
November 18th, 2010, 08:17 AM
...Zapatero does all what says Obama from Washington. However, this story will have an impact on Morocco and its external relations, because the current situation in Western Sahara is an international shame.

So you think Obama should be telling Spain what do do by taking action themselves?

We are responsible for NOT telling Spain how to run things?

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 09:08 AM
So you think Obama should be telling Spain what do do by taking action themselves?

We are responsible for NOT telling Spain how to run things?

The problem of Western Sahara is a problem inherited from 1975. The main international ally of Spain is the United States (militarily and economically). Spain will not do anything that goes against U.S. strategic interests. The problem is that the situation in Morocco is compounded every day. Today Morocco is a very poor country with little economic and industrial development and politically very unstable. Morocco has a population living in poverty, but the king is one of the richest men in the world. Spain is Morocco's neighbor and has to endure constant breaches of international law committed in Morocco: is the world's largest producer of hashish, does nothing to prevent the illegal entry of immigrants in Europe, has a policy in Western Sahara which is illegal and goes against the UN resolutions and frequently threatens to invade Spanish territories in North Africa (Ceuta, Melilla, Velez de la Gomera site, Chafarinas islands, Perejil island and Canary Islands)
U.S. tells Spain: Be patient, it is better endure so than try to change things in Morocco. What is the limit of patience of Spain? Many Spanish believe that dignity has a price and that Morocco deserves a severe punishment. Morocco is like a fly on a summer day around you when you want to sleep...

lofter1
November 18th, 2010, 09:59 AM
Spain will not do anything that goes against U.S. strategic interests ...

Spain has done so in the past (not criticizing the Spanish choice in 2004, just pointing out the facts):

Spain pulls out Iraq troops ahead of schedule (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/spai-m08.shtml)

If, as you claim, Spain can't behave as a sovereign nation and act in its own interest, then whose fault is that?

Perhaps the "great soldier" Franco?

Ninjahedge
November 18th, 2010, 10:02 AM
DT, then your stance should be that the US should ASK SPAIN to behave differently, NOT that the US should do something and get Spain to follow suit.

That is something that may be more easily asked and defended than propositioning the US to be the world's police force.

ZippyTheChimp
November 18th, 2010, 10:15 AM
This is getting ridiculous. Maybe we should just go back to Franco in 1936, and blame it all on Germany. Those Stukas were a bitch.

Dr. T, what is the US doing now, that other nations aren't also doing, to stop a resolution that's languishing in the UN? And what specifically do you want the US to do now? I don't want to hear "stop supporting Morocco," because Spain and other countries are doing the same thing.

If you want the US to flex its muscles and use military force, that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. And it shouldn't.

If the US were to use military force and wind up destabilizing Morocco and be forced to occupy the country, I'd think that other EU countries would be pissed at the US for interfering in their backyard.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 11:23 AM
Spain has done so in the past (not criticizing the Spanish choice in 2004, just pointing out the facts):

Spain pulls out Iraq troops ahead of schedule (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2004/may2004/spai-m08.shtml)

If, as you claim, Spain can't behave as a sovereign nation and act in its own interest, then whose fault is that?

Perhaps the "great soldier" Franco?



http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/alvarobazan1.jpg

hahahaha Spain did not leave Iraq War ! What a lie !...
You don't understand to Zapatero... hahahaaah
November 2005: Zapatero sent frigate F-101 Alvaro de Bazán to sail with CVN-71 USS Theodore Roosevelt on Gulf Persian

http://luisrull.es/2005/11/el-run-run-de-la-blogosfera-prepara.html

Zapatero's politic program is only one: hypocrisy
When Obama reach the power, Zapatero sent 3000 troops to Afghanistan to replace those brought from Iraq. So did Palestine and Somalia to fight pirates

-----------------
General Franco didn't help to Germany in II World War, don't forget (Hendaya meeting, France). Spain was neutral and helped to USA and UK during the II World War many times... Franco was youngest General on Spanish Military History (he had fighted during 20 years in Africa against Marocco before Spanish civil war). Franco was an official, Hitler was not official and Franco knew what would happen to Germany in the II World War.

lofter1
November 18th, 2010, 11:38 AM
With all due respect, Dr. T: If you want to make a good argument here, you should brush up on your English comprehension.

The headline I posted says "Spain pulls out Iraq troops ahead of schedule" (meaning some of their soldiers were withdrawn) and not, as you re-write it, "leave Iraq War" implying a full pull out of all Spanish military presence.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 11:58 AM
DT, then your stance should be that the US should ASK SPAIN to behave differently, NOT that the US should do something and get Spain to follow suit.

That is something that may be more easily asked and defended than propositioning the US to be the world's police force.

Who does police's work every day in Strait of Gibraltar? Who's monitoring the problems of Morocco and Algeria ? What was the nationality of the 200 people killed in the Atocha station (Madrid)? For the Americans the problems of international terrorism were not interesting before the attack in New York: it had over 1,000 dead killed by ETA during 30 years in Spain . Spaniards have fought against international terrorism alone during many years. Do you want to talk about islamic terrorism in 80s or 90s? Please, you must respect to Spain.... Today everyone talk about terrorism in USA, but how many times Spain asked help to combat terrorism in the past time? Where was US?

Sometime in the future there will be a war of Algeria against Morocco .... then everyone will say: Spain is guilty should have monitored the area ...

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 12:01 PM
With all due respect, Dr. T: If you want to make a good argument here, you should brush up on your English comprehension.

The headline I posted says "Spain pulls out Iraq troops ahead of schedule" (meaning some of their soldiers were withdrawn) and not, as you re-write it, "leave Iraq War" implying a full pull out of all Spanish military presence.

Ok. I'm sorry, lofter1

Ninjahedge
November 18th, 2010, 12:20 PM
Actually DT, I was not talking about Terrorism. Youa re changing the subject.

You are saying that bad things are happening in Morocco and the US should do something about it BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE US IS RESPONSIBLE.

It isn't.

People have sited, repeatedly, that they are NOT the cheif importer or exporter to Morocco, and it is not responsible for the actions of Spain.

You keep trying to squeeze the US in there claiming that it is our duty and our responsibility to take an ACTIVE ROLE in a contiies affairs that we posess little interest in. We are not the primary players in this and, as such, we should not be called to ack as such.

lofter1
November 18th, 2010, 12:47 PM
Aren't the troubles with ETA basically an internal Spanish situation?

The US doesn't have other countries jump in when our government goes after home grown troublesmakers on our own soil.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 12:56 PM
This is getting ridiculous. Maybe we should just go back to Franco in 1936, and blame it all on Germany. Those Stukas were a bitch.

Dr. T, what is the US doing now, that other nations aren't also doing, to stop a resolution that's languishing in the UN? And what specifically do you want the US to do now? I don't want to hear "stop supporting Morocco," because Spain and other countries are doing the same thing.

If you want the US to flex its muscles and use military force, that's not going to happen any time in the foreseeable future. And it shouldn't.

If the US were to use military force and wind up destabilizing Morocco and be forced to occupy the country, I'd think that other EU countries would be pissed at the US for interfering in their backyard.

General Franco was a military dictator. However, do not confuse some issues. In Spain in the 60's had no political freedom, but it was a capitalist country that had created a middle class that allowed the democratic transition. In 1936 in Spain were only rich and poor, on the other hand, in 1975 had a large middle class made up of good architects, engineers, lawyers, economists, doctors, so on. This social and economic transformation is what allowed the political transition to democracy in 1975.

What can the U.S. do? Rabat diplomatic pressure to stop attacking the Sahrawi people, require Morocco to celebrate a referendum on self-determination in a legal term, prevent American companies exploite the resources of Western Sahara and open channels of dialogue with Algeria.

I never talked about a military solution, but a low-level diplomatic solution can not solve the problem. It is necessary to force Morocco to comply with UN resolutions or 'eliminate' the cause (the king of Morocco)

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 01:09 PM
Aren't the troubles with ETA basically an internal Spanish situation?

The US doesn't have other countries jump in when our government goes after home grown troublesmakers on our own soil.

ETA terrorism is more than internal problem. The terrorists were trained in countries such as Syria, Egypt or Yemen. The weapons were bought in large international markets of illegal arms trafficking. To say that ETA problem is internal problem is like say that if cocaine is sold on Miami streets is only a U.S. domestic problem.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 02:06 PM
Actually DT, I was not talking about Terrorism. Youa re changing the subject.

You are saying that bad things are happening in Morocco and the US should do something about it BECAUSE YOU BELIEVE THE US IS RESPONSIBLE.

It isn't.

People have sited, repeatedly, that they are NOT the cheif importer or exporter to Morocco, and it is not responsible for the actions of Spain.

You keep trying to squeeze the US in there claiming that it is our duty and our responsibility to take an ACTIVE ROLE in a contiies affairs that we posess little interest in. We are not the primary players in this and, as such, we should not be called to ack as such.

I'm not changing the discussion topic, I'm talking about Marocco.... you don't know that terrorists who were tried and convicted for the bombing on Atocha station (Madrid) were from Morocco. Why Spanish have to go fight in Afghanistan? Perhaps because the Taleban have helped to kill Americans in New York ?. I think it's a good reason to help in Afghanistan against international terrorism, but don't forget that 200 people were killed by Morocco terrorists in Atocha station because Spain had participated in the invasion of Iraq. How many terrorists have been arrested by Marocco in the last years in its country ?

Maybe you must tranlate this report...

http://www.lukor.com/not-mun/africa/portada/07110105.htm




11-M.- La prensa internacional se hace eco de la sentencia por el 11-M mientras la marroquí la ignora



MADRID/PARIS, 1 (EUROPA PRESS)

La mayoría de los principales diarios internacionales se hacen eco hoy de la sentencia por los atentados del 11-M resaltando distintos aspectos de la misma según sus preferencias, mientras que la prensa marroquí, país del que procedían la mayoría de los imputados, la ignora.

Los medios de comunicación británicos abren hoy sus portadas de Internacional con la noticia de la sentencia del juicio por los atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004, pero mientras los diarios como 'The Guardian' o 'The Times' resaltan sobre todo las penas de cárcel para los condenados o la absolución de 'Mohamed El Egipcio', la BBC destaca en su portada el descontento de la mayoría de las víctimas.

'The Times' titula en portada de su edición digital: "191 muertos, miles de víctimas, pero el 'cerebro' es absuelto". Así, explica que "el acusado de ser el autor intelectual del peor atentado islamista en Europa fue absuelto de todos los cargos junto con otros seis, en una sentencia sorprendente que enfadó a las víctimas".

El atentado "fue el mayor ataque terrorista del mundo desde el 11 de septiembre de 2001, y fue el primer ejemplo en Europa del terrorismo a gran escala inspirado en Al Qaeda. Pero los fiscales han fallado en convencer a los jueces de la vinculación con Al Qaeda. Y los veredictos también han fallado en responder a la pregunta de quién planeó el ataque", según critica el rotativo.

"Asesinos de masas encarcelados por 40 años, tal y como sentencia el veredicto del 11-S español", titula por su parte 'The Guardian', remarcando que los condenados no pasarán más de 40 años en prisión, como dicta la Ley española. Su subtítulo subraya la decepción de los familiares de las víctimas después de la absolución del acusado como cerebro de los atentados "que dejaron 191 muertos".

En este sentido, la BBC afirma que las víctimas, a las que considera "enfadadas", apelarán por lo que han calificado de "tratamiento indulgente hacia algunos de los procesados". "Un familiar dice que ha habido dos veredictos de culpabilidad por un crimen que costó cerca de 200 vidas", añade.

Asimismo, 'The Times' también destaca la reacción del Ejecutivo a la sentencia del juicio. De este modo, se puede leer en su edición digital que "a pesar de las absoluciones, el Gobierno consideró un éxito importante" el veredicto. Además, resalta que la sentencia "enterró de forma decisiva la teoría de la conspiración, apoyada por el principal partido de la oposición, acerca de que los atentados fueron obra de ETA".

PRENSA ITALIANA y FRANCESA

Por su parte, la prensa italiana coincide en destacar que el terrorismo islamista estuvo detrás de los atentados. "Madrid, mano dura contra los terroristas", titula 'La Repubblica', subrayando que "los atentados estuvieron firmados por una célula islámica". Asimismo, el rotativo se hace eco de que la sentencia confirma que ETA no tuvo nada que ver y subraya que 'el Egipcio', que se encuentra detenido en Italia donde se le ha acusado de pertenencia a una organización terrorista islamista, fue absuelto.

También el 'Corriere della Sera' resalta que los atentados fueron obra de "una célula islámica", pero como en el caso de la 'Repubblica' no entra a valorar en un artículo de opinión la sentencia, limitándose a relatar las condenas y la absolución de 'El Egipcio'.

Por último 'La Stampa', que comienza su artículo con las declaraciones de Zapatero, resalta la componente islamista del atentado y la absolución de 'El Egipcio". Además, en un ladillo afirma: "absuelta ETA" y añade que la sentencia "pone el último clavo a la teoría conspirativa defendida por el PP, estrategia a la que la oposición conservadora se vio obligada por el comportamiento del Gobierno de José Maria Aznar inmediatamente después de los atentados, cuando la responsabilidad de los terroristas vascos fue defendida durante casi dos días contra todas las pruebas".

"Atentados de Madrid: veredicto decepcionante para las víctimas", señala la información del diario conservador francés 'Le Figaro' que, en su portada, elige el siguiente titular: "Exculpado el supuesto cerebro de los atentados de Madrid". "Ayer, la justicia condenó a 2 de los 28 acusados de los atentados del 11 de marzo de 2004. Las medias tintas del veredicto han decepcionado a las víctimas", dice.

El diario se hace eco también de la aprobación de la ley de la Memoria Histórica adoptada en el Congreso, que ha tenido más eco en la prensa gala que la sentencia del 11-M. Además de 'Le Figaro', el popular 'Le Parisien' incluye el artículo 'El franquismo enterrado', y la edición digital del vespertino 'Le Monde' escribe 'Las víctimas del franquismo, reconocidas oficialmente'. No obstante, la edición impresa de 'Le Monde' no incluye la sentencia del 11-M.

MARRUECOS

A pesar de que algunos de los acusados en el juicio eran de origen marroquí, la prensa del país magrebí no se hace eco de la sentencia. El diario 'Le Matin' ocupa su portada con la inauguración del Instituto Cervantes en Marrackech por el Príncipe de Asturias e incluye un editorial titulado "el falso paso del juez Baltasar Garzón". La única referencia a España es para informar de la ley de Memoria histórica. "Memoria histórica para pasar la página del franquismo. Una ley que ha tenido una larga y dolorosa gestación", dice.

La portada de 'Aujourdui le Maroc' es para la decisión del juez Baltasar Garzón de investigar si Marruecos cometió un presunto delito de genocidio en el Sáhara y el rotativo resalta que esta noticia se produce durante la visita del Príncipe de Asturias.

En la sección internacional del periódico, la apuesta es por dar espacio a Francia. Hay un total de seis informaciones sobre el país galo que van desde la posible mediación del coronel libio Muamar Gadafi en la crisis de la ONG francesa en Chad hasta el sueldo del presidente Sarkozy pasando por la ofensiva diplomática francesa en Libia.

Ninjahedge
November 18th, 2010, 03:36 PM
You are changing the topic.

The topic is not "everything that is wrong with Morocco". You started saying about the current government and its mishandling of the Sahrawi people. You were calling for economic sanctions and for the US to 'do something'.

There were several problems in what you were saying.

First, you admit that it is a problem with Spain, yet you deny it is Spain's responsibility. You seem to think it is up to the US to do something and have Spain follow. You call for sanctions, even though sanctions from the US would do little considering France and Spain to be the main players in the economic circle. You claim that Spain only does what the US says, which is a blatant fabrication.

You also go on to site Spain's support of the US, and when presented with a plan for support of equal scale, you say it is not enough.

Now you bring in Terrorism. You compare a governmental sanctioned military act with 19 individuals slamming planes into buildings to kill civilians and scare the world. Neither was right, but they are not easily comparable in anything other than innocents were hurt.

Afghanistan is a country near you that all countries would have benefited from action within. The only problem being, the US got greedy and went after an old grudge with Saddam, and the world slowly backed out and ran away from both conflicts with minimal support on either.

Stop mixing issues.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 04:02 PM
We're talking about Western Sahara... King Mohamed VI tells Western Sahara is a province of Morocco... and Polisario Front a terrorist group !
Why not talk about Morocco terrorists in Spain ? They killed 200 citizen in Madrid...



Afghanistan is a country near you that all countries would have benefited from action within



Are you sure ? Spain have excellent relations with all Arabs and Muslim nations (except Marocco, Somalia and Yemen ), unlike U.S. because your nation is supporting Israel...

For Spaniards, islamic terrorism is equal Marocco, not Afghanistan... :cool:

ZippyTheChimp
November 18th, 2010, 07:59 PM
General Franco didn't help to Germany in II World War, don't forget (Hendaya meeting, France).It was sarcasm, and you have it backwards.

Since so much of your argument is about 40 years of Franco and the situation at the time of his death, I suggested (sarcastically), that we blame Germany, because the Nazis assisted Franco during the civil war. No Germany, no Nazis. No Nazis, no Franco. We could go back further if you like, and blame Georges Clemenceau.

None of this is going to solve the problem. US people didn't care about Franco in 1975, except that it took so long for him to die (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalissimo_Francisco_Franco_is_still_dead).


What can the U.S. do? Rabat diplomatic pressure to stop attacking the Sahrawi people, require Morocco to celebrate a referendum on self-determinationAnd what if he says no?


I never talked about a military solution, but a low-level diplomatic solution can not solve the problem. It is necessary to force Morocco to comply with UN resolutions or 'eliminate' the cause (the king of Morocco)What makes you think the US has "high-level diplomatic" influence among Muslim countries? You yourself said:


Spain have excellent relations with all Arabs and Muslim nations (except Marocco, Somalia and Yemen ), unlike U.S. because your nation is supporting Israel...Seems like Spain is the credible choice fore diplomacy.

Dr.T
November 18th, 2010, 10:12 PM
It was sarcasm, and you have it backwards.

Since so much of your argument is about 40 years of Franco and the situation at the time of his death, I suggested (sarcastically), that we blame Germany, because the Nazis assisted Franco during the civil war. No Germany, no Nazis. No Nazis, no Franco. We could go back further if you like, and blame Georges Clemenceau.

None of this is going to solve the problem. US people didn't care about Franco in 1975, except that it took so long for him to die (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalissimo_Francisco_Franco_is_still_dead).

And what if he says no?

What makes you think the US has "high-level diplomatic" influence among Muslim countries? You yourself said:

Seems like Spain is the credible choice fore diplomacy.


Your concern about Franco is inversely proportional to the interest of Americans to prevent Franco won the Spanish civil war. Maybe you should keep quiet about it. If Americans did not intervene militarily to help the Government of Spain in 1936, ... then why do you complain that Franco was a dictator and lived many years?

If the King of Morocco say that will not stop hostilities against the Sahrawi people, then we can talk about what can be done to look into the royal family of Morocco a different person who wants to move the country forward economically and socially and do not systematically violate UN resolutions . Step by step.

Spain's traditional friendship with Arab countries is a legacy that Franco gave Spain after many international efforts. When the U.S. prevented from entering Spain at the UN ( December 12th, 1946) our only friends were the Arab countries and Argentina. Spanish are eternally grateful to countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan because they helped my country when Americans said that Spain was not worthy of being in the UN.

http://www.fundacionpdh.org/memoriahistorica/1946-Resolucion-ONU.htm

The only European country not recognized for decades the State of Israel (the state invented by the Americans and British to oppress the Palestinians) was Franco's Spain and it cost us the contempt and punishment by the United States. Franco was militar dictator but a great enemy of Israel and a great defender of the Arabs in Spain, despite being Catholic. All Arab nations always recognized the efforts of Spain in the Western Sahara and in defense of the Palestinian people.

I do not believe that Arab countries have the same concept of Spain to the United States. Do you remember the terrorist attacks on New York and Madrid?. I do not recall any Arab approve and celebrate the attack on Spain ( Marocco is a muslim country, but not Arab nation...)

ZippyTheChimp
November 19th, 2010, 01:40 AM
Your concern about Franco is inversely proportional to the interest of Americans to prevent Franco won the Spanish civil war.You still don't get the sarcasm about Franco in this thread.


then why do you complain that Franco was a dictator and lived many years?Who's complaining? You were the one that brought up Franco pages ago.


Spain's traditional friendship with Arab countries is a legacy that Franco gave Spain after many international efforts.Just like I said above, Spain seems better suited to take the initiative. Or are Spaniards afraid of hearing "Death to Spain" when things go wrong.


our only friends were the Arab countries and Argentina. Spanish are eternally grateful to countries like Saudi Arabia or Jordan because they helped my country when Americans said that Spain was not worthy of being in the UN.


The only European country not recognized for decades the State of Israel (the state invented by the Americans and British to oppress the Palestinians) was Franco's Spain and it cost us the contempt and punishment by the United States.


Franco was militar dictator but a great enemy of Israel and a great defender of the Arabs in Spain, despite being Catholic. All Arab nations always recognized the efforts of Spain in the Western Sahara and in defense of the Palestinian people.


I do not believe that Arab countries have the same concept of Spain to the United States.


Do you remember the terrorist attacks on New York and Madrid?. I do not recall any Arab approve and celebrate the attack on Spain ( Marocco is a muslim country, but not Arab nation...)

And now you want to piss all these countries off by asking "The Great Satan" to send an aircraft carrier to scare the hell out of another Muslim country, while your PM writes love-letters to the genocide King of Morocco?

No thanks.

Dr.T
November 19th, 2010, 08:10 AM
You still don't get the sarcasm about Franco in this thread.

Who's complaining? You were the one that brought up Franco pages ago.

Just like I said above, Spain seems better suited to take the initiative. Or are Spaniards afraid of hearing "Death to Spain" when things go wrong.

And now you want to piss all these countries off by asking "The Great Satan" to send an aircraft carrier to scare the hell out of another Muslim country, while your PM writes love-letters to the genocide King of Morocco?

No thanks.

Spain during Second World War was only a 'formal' ally of Germany, the reason was unique: the great enemy of Spain was communism of the Soviet Union. Spaniards during Second World War fought only in Russia ( División Azul ). Spain during 40's and 50's was brutally attacked by U.S. diplomacy and expelled from the UN, do not forget ... please...

Franco's dictatorship was only 'formal' during 60's and 70's, because if you want we can talk about Ibiza, Benidorm, Majorca, Costa Brava (Catalonia) and Costa del Sol (Malaga and Marbella). Why Spain was full of European tourists if it was a terrible dictatorship? You are exaggerating your discourse about Spain during General Franco's regime. I remind you that Spain opened joint military bases with the U.S. Army in the Spanish territory on the 60's (Torrejón de Ardoz military base, Zaragoza military base, Rota military base)... The U.S. supported to Franco dictatorship on the 60's !

For many years (till 80's) the only place in Europe where the Palestinians could come to talk about the genocide of Israel was Madrid ... The General Franco's regime was the only one in Europe that always condemned communism in the Soviet Union and the genocide of Palestine... Today, Spain defends to Sahrawi people and they are talking Marocco genocide in Western Sahara from Spanish press...

I do not defend Franco, I just tell the story without exaggerating or manipulating.

--------------------------------------------------------

About your 'fabulous' aircraft carriers,....
hahaha Don't worry Zippy, currently we've got 2 warships: one to attack Marocco... and other to attack North Korea...
Do you need more frigates, submarines or troops for 'your' geo-strategic wars? We're ready to help the U.S. all over the world hahaha
Spaniards aren't bad boys... We love USA ! hahahaaaah...

http://i853.photobucket.com/albums/ab92/lunarossa_sanpete/second%20part/portaviones1.jpg

ZippyTheChimp
November 19th, 2010, 09:21 AM
^
I promised one battalion and a tank. I'll add a helicopter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, maybe some of the thinks I said should happen are starting...


Violence in West Sahara
raises concerns on EU fish pact

Tue, Nov 16 2010

By Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Moroccan security force action against protesters in Western Sahara has boosted opposition in the EU to a treaty that would allow European fishing in waters off the territory, activists and EU lawmakers said on Tuesday.

"We will not accept an EU fisheries accord with Morocco if it includes the waters of Western Sahara," Raul Romeva, a Spanish lawmaker and member of the European Green party, told fellow deputies during a European Parliament hearing.

Romeva, who has led debate on the issue, said European lawmakers from across the political spectrum -- including Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives and Greens -- are beginning to question the accord, which is planned for March 2011.

At issue is the renewal of a four-year fishing pact whereby the EU acquires the right from Morocco to fish in its waters, including those belonging to Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony annexed by Morocco in 1975.

That annexation prompted a rebellion by the opposition Polisario Front. The United Nations brokered a ceasefire in 1991 but a political settlement to Africa's longest-running territorial dispute has eluded negotiators.

Polisario said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Monday that more than 36 Sahrawis protesting for better housing and working conditions last week died in clashes with Moroccan security forces and 163 were detained, and demanded a U.N. investigation of the clashes.

The Moroccan government has denied excessive use of force and accused Sahrawi activists of "brutal practices" including cutting the throat of a Moroccan policeman.

In New York, a closed-door Security Council meeting was briefed by a senior U.N. peacekeeping official on Tuesday on the clashes and "deplored the violence," British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, current council president, told reporters.

The meeting ended without immediate action, diplomats said. Developing countries and human rights groups want U.N. peacekeepers in Western Sahara to take on rights monitoring, something Morocco and its ally on the council, France, oppose.

A senior Western diplomat said the divided council was unlikely to mount the fact-finding mission sought by Polisario but that there could be a case for it making a trip, possibly next year, to the territory, which it last visited in 1995.

SARDINES FOR EUROPE

In Brussels, Ivo Vajgl of the EU Liberal Democrats said EU deputies opposed to a new fishing deal should turn to their national governments for support.

European fishermen widely fish the waters of Western Sahara under a current 2007 agreement, mainly for sardines and octopus destined for European restaurants and processing plants.

Activists estimate about 70 percent to 80 percent of fish caught under the fisheries accord are caught in the disputed waters. That figure is disputed because of the difficulty in tracking fishing boats and the fish themselves.

The deal by the EU, which champions human rights and governance in its diplomatic and trade relations, contrasts with an agreement between the United States and Morocco, whose effects stop at Morocco's southern border with Western Sahara.

Responding to mounting concerns, EU fisheries chief Maria Damanaki has said the EU Executive Commission can only propose a renewal if Morocco proves the deal will benefit Sahrawis.

"For that to be substantiated, an assessment needs to be carried out. This assessment would have to be based on solid information and facts. There is no other way," Damanaki told EU deputies last month.

EU deputies on Tuesday said any assessment should include input from Polisario.

Aminatou Haidar, a prize-winning human rights activist, warned against unchecked mining operations for Western Sahara's phosphates and sands, which -- unbound by state-to-state accords -- are largely being exploited by foreign operators.

"This will extinguish the mining resources of Western Sahara. It will have very serious repercussions on Western Sahara's economy and environment," Haidar told deputies.

(Additional reporting by Patrick Worsnip at the United Nations; Editing by Ralph Boulton and Bill Trott)

© Thomson Reuters 2010. All rights reserved.

Dr.T
November 19th, 2010, 10:51 AM
All Spaniards love Aminatou Haider... a great woman ! a great leader !
Viva AMINATOU HAIDER ! She's is a symbol and example to everyone...


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aKG_5K60zrQ&feature=fvw

Dr.T
November 19th, 2010, 10:53 AM
^
I promised one battalion and a tank. I'll add a helicopter.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Seriously, maybe some of the thinks I said should happen are starting...


Violence in West Sahara
raises concerns on EU fish pact

Tue, Nov 16 2010

By Juliane von Reppert-Bismarck

BRUSSELS (Reuters) - Moroccan security force action against protesters in Western Sahara has boosted opposition in the EU to a treaty that would allow European fishing in waters off the territory, activists and EU lawmakers said on Tuesday.

"We will not accept an EU fisheries accord with Morocco if it includes the waters of Western Sahara," Raul Romeva, a Spanish lawmaker and member of the European Green party, told fellow deputies during a European Parliament hearing.

Romeva, who has led debate on the issue, said European lawmakers from across the political spectrum -- including Socialists, Liberals, Conservatives and Greens -- are beginning to question the accord, which is planned for March 2011.

At issue is the renewal of a four-year fishing pact whereby the EU acquires the right from Morocco to fish in its waters, including those belonging to Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony annexed by Morocco in 1975.

That annexation prompted a rebellion by the opposition Polisario Front. The United Nations brokered a ceasefire in 1991 but a political settlement to Africa's longest-running territorial dispute has eluded negotiators.

Polisario said in a letter to the U.N. Security Council on Monday that more than 36 Sahrawis protesting for better housing and working conditions last week died in clashes with Moroccan security forces and 163 were detained, and demanded a U.N. investigation of the clashes.

The Moroccan government has denied excessive use of force and accused Sahrawi activists of "brutal practices" including cutting the throat of a Moroccan policeman.

In New York, a closed-door Security Council meeting was briefed by a senior U.N. peacekeeping official on Tuesday on the clashes and "deplored the violence," British Ambassador Mark Lyall Grant, current council president, told reporters.

The meeting ended without immediate action, diplomats said. Developing countries and human rights groups want U.N. peacekeepers in Western Sahara to take on rights monitoring, something Morocco and its ally on the council, France, oppose.

A senior Western diplomat said the divided council was unlikely to mount the fact-finding mission sought by Polisario but that there could be a case for it making a trip, possibly next year, to the territory, which it last visited in 1995.

SARDINES FOR EUROPE

In Brussels, Ivo Vajgl of the EU Liberal Democrats said EU deputies opposed to a new fishing deal should turn to their national governments for support.

European fishermen widely fish the waters of Western Sahara under a current 2007 agreement, mainly for sardines and octopus destined for European restaurants and processing plants.

Activists estimate about 70 percent to 80 percent of fish caught under the fisheries accord are caught in the disputed waters. That figure is disputed because of the difficulty in tracking fishing boats and the fish themselves.

The deal by the EU, which champions human rights and governance in its diplomatic and trade relations, contrasts with an agreement between the United States and Morocco, whose effects stop at Morocco's southern border with Western Sahara.

Responding to mounting concerns, EU fisheries chief Maria Damanaki has said the EU Executive Commission can only propose a renewal if Morocco proves the deal will benefit Sahrawis.

"For that to be substantiated, an assessment needs to be carried out. This assessment would have to be based on solid information and facts. There is no other way," Damanaki told EU deputies last month.

EU deputies on Tuesday said any assessment should include input from Polisario.

Aminatou Haidar, a prize-winning human rights activist, warned against unchecked mining operations for Western Sahara's phosphates and sands, which -- unbound by state-to-state accords -- are largely being exploited by foreign operators.

"This will extinguish the mining resources of Western Sahara. It will have very serious repercussions on Western Sahara's economy and environment," Haidar told deputies.

(Additional reporting by Patrick Worsnip at the United Nations; Editing by Ralph Boulton and Bill Trott)

© Thomson Reuters 2010. All rights reserved.

Great news !
This is the right way, a first step to stop Western Sahara's genocide...

Dr.T
November 20th, 2010, 09:17 AM
Clinton responded that she would study the idea, although it is not clear exactly what ‘more political impulse’ could actually consist of... :mad:




Trinidad Jiménez asks Hillary Clinton for more US implication in the Western Sahara


By h.b. - Nov 20, 2010 - 1:42 PM
http://www.typicallyspanish.com/spain/uploads/4/jimenezandclinton.jpg
Trinidad Jiménez and Hillary Clinton - Photo EFE


The two women met for the first time at the NATO summit in Lisbon on Saturday


The Spanish Minister for Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Trinidad Jiménez, met with the United States Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, on Saturday, as part of the NATO summit in Lisbon.


It was the first meeting between the two women since Jiménez took up the post on October 20, and comes as Spain is embroiled in the crisis in the Western Sahara.


During the 35 minutes the two women spent together Jiménez called for ‘more political impulse’ from the ‘Friends of Sahara Group’ in the efforts being made to solve the conflict in the Western Sahara. The friends group is made up of the United States, Spain, Russia, France and the U.K. Jiménez considered that the Moroccan Government and the Polisario Front ‘should not feel alone during the dialogue process’.


Clinton responded that she would study the idea, although it is not clear exactly what ‘more political impulse’ could actually consist of.



Read more: http://www.typicallyspanish.com/news/publish/article_27956.shtml#ixzz15pdGK5z0