Ignacio: where did you read that about Jr. not answering the phone El Pais? Certainly a reliable source. As far as the Falklands are concerned it was made clear at the time that your leader did not want to be invloved because of the common lanuage with Argentina. As far a Grenada is concerned I am not surprised that you have never heard of it, the whole operation only took about three days and the US was the only one involved.

Ignacion: Last spring right after Zapatero recalled all the Spanish troops from Iraq, were you aware that he requested NATO send the AWACS planes to provide airborne warning and control for the Royal Wedding? This was in fact provided. Do you know the name that was painted on the front of both sides of the fuselage of those aircraft? Let me help you out on that one Ignacio
US AIR FORCE. Not NATO not Espana. You dont want our help, fine with us. You dont want our friendship, fine with us. You dont want our military help, fine with us. I am still trying to figure out what it is that you think we are doing that makes Spain not free from the US. Maybe you can help me out on that one.

I do have one real good question for you Ignacio. You have made it clear that you hate President Bush, you have made it clear that you hate the US, you have made it clear that you consider us to be a bunch of unsophisticated fools, why do you participate on this board? It seem to me that you are getting high blood pressure from conversing with us unsophisticated fools.

I'll say it with more simple words:

Spain-no-in-OTAN-till-1985-fully.
I-Know-about-Granada-but-no-cubans-there-just-usa-invasion-sovereign-small-indefense-country.

Diario de León, another newspaper. Zapatero phoned and was told that he will be "attended soon".

Conservative rightest PP wing ABC newspaper.

There are more.

No, I don't think that all americans are unsophisticated brutes. But I believe there are too many of those. And besides, even people who have brains, don't have both sides' info on any political, economical, social matter, and they think they have it, which makes them as easily manipulable as those brutes. Kind of a whole life's brainwashing that few (mostly those who can travel and are open to debate) can dis-program.

Yes, the NATO uses mainly OTAN AWACS, and it's a great help, but I believe it was only a comlementary measure just in case, because, you know, we have our own radars in our country. Of course we don't need mobile radars because we're not going to invade anybody. But (I am not certain, but I believe) those AWACS have a compensaion for their services to the NATO, that is, they are not free.

BTW, there has been a recent declaration of our highest rank militar (besides of the King), general Félix Sanz (Jefe de Estado Mayor de la Defensa) that the USA contributes to Spain, through the NATO much less tahn what Spain gives, and that the relationship had to be balanced.

A vry good example is that one: radars. Recently Spain wanted to change the old radars for new ones, INdra (spanish tech firm) developed them and Spain paid for them. We asked Nato for financial help, to cover for the installing (minor) expenses, and (not the NATO but the USA unilaterally) said NO, because they now have AWACS (that the USA can give or not) and don't want to help anymore, as other countries had previously had been helped by the same alliance they contribute with funds. That would let our preventive systems totally in the hand of the UsA, if they didn't want to send AWACS we would be blind!

Spain blocked then several financial projects for american interests that NATO would pay, like a leisure center for american pilots in Aviano, but this one was later unblocked as a good will proof, but the USA kept on vetoeing all spanish projects.

First, I participate in this board, but I don't do it because I want specifically to discuss USA politics, much less discuss them with american citizens. This is an international board, and politics is just a marginal part of it, although becse it's a hot debate, it gets much more attention and participation.

Second: I hate USA foreign policy, and your ultracapitalist social scheme, and the nationalism that makes you not permeable to info, just your "commander in chief" words no matter that more and more proofs appear of it's falsehood.

But I don't hate americans, although Bush voters are not pleasant for me (because they justify USA state terrorism in Irak), and I don't hate the idea of the america that should be (according to your own fathers of the nation), what I hate is what it has become, which is too different.

Ignacio, I have news, Cuba did invade Grenada...
You can read more about it in Wikipedia the online encyclopedia...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

Cuba was in eternal debt to the Soviet Union. The Soviets totally subsidized the cost of running the island to the tune of millions, which in poetic justice helped in bankrupting the Soviets. :p Anyway, Fidel paid his debt by sending Cubans to fight all over the world, places like Angola, and other lesser known places.

Ignacio,

Where do you come up with this garbage? Don't you have history books that deal with facts, and sources that don't paint pictures without leaving out the truth? This is really getting old!

One more time into the breach!

The US became involved with the issue of Grenada in response to an appeal from the Governor General(under house arrest by the Communists) and to a request for assistance from the Organization of Eastern Caribbean States. The mission was to oust the People's Revolutionary Government, to protect U.S. citizens and restore the lawful government.

The neighbors feared what lay ahead, as the Soviets and Cubans who planned destabilization of their governments and an overthrow of same just like the Cubans and Soviets fostered in Grenada itself.

The opposition, all part of a package put together by Castro and the Soviet Union: 1,200 Grenadians (People's revolutionaries), 780 Cubans, 49 Soviets, 24 North Koreans, 16 East Germans, 14 Bulgarians, and 3 or 4 Libyans. All were soldiers, some were military engineering. The Libyans were the only ones who weren't military personnel.

The "invading force" was predominantly Americans, but OAS states sent troops as well. It was never about the US.

The existing government at the time of the invasion was Communist revolutionary. It first came into power when it overthrew (was not elected) the duly elected government of the country in 1979. At that time, according to reports, the bulk of the rebel forces involved in the overthrow were actually Cuban, not Grenadan as some people would like to believe. They were behind the entire operation, supported it, and armed the rebels.

The Communist leader who took control was the PRG leader Maurice Bishop. By 1983 the Soviets and Cubans realized that Bishop's plans did not include invading his neighbors with Cuban and other foreign troops as they wanted, so he was asassinated, and the stronger communists who were willing to abide by the Cuban/Soviet plan of destabilizing area governments took control.

I'm afraid this is one more feeble attempt at trying to make the US look like a monster by totally avoiding facts, and paying homage to communist propaganda that is so far from the truth that anyone who has half a mind, would know it's not true.

But, like all the arguments we are forced to field from you and Cristobo, none of the hold water, none of them are true, and none of them deal with reality. The two of you live in a fairy tale world where the evil empire is the US, and the only thing you can do is attack... attack... attack... and you don't have to do it armed with truth, you can do it with inuendo, and lies.

I suggest the two of you take a cold hard look at what you represent, and why your causes are considered so far out in left field. You have serious problems accepting anything that isn't channeled directly into the scope of what you want to hear.

As I said, this is getting old. You really have problems.

Wolf

Ignacio: The reason the US deployed troops to the Falkland to assist the British is because we joined NATO in 1948 and the SATO in the late 1950s. Our policy has always been and always will be to assist the "attacked" in this case the British via the Falkland. Also the first treaty took presadent over the second. Therfore the British were assisted.

As far as Jr. not taking Zapatero's phone call, I think Jr. probably still felt upset over the blatant slap in the face that Zapatero had given the US in the spring. I don't think I would have taken his call either. Spain flat walked out on a commitment in response to an act of terrorism, thus caving into the terrorist. Now Jr. as well as the majority of America does not feel like we could depend on Spain in a crisis mode. As you have pointed out before we turned out in record numbers for the election this week. We stood up to the terrorist, your people gave them what they wanted.

I have to tell you Ignacio, your not a stupid person. You are dealing with mostly Americans on this board and as you said it is an international board. But you should start to think about the purely hateful things that you say. Many of which are truly unfounded.

As far as your comment about Gibralter is concerned, again history will record to you that neither Hitler or Franco would agree with your assesment as not worth fighting for. Hitler wanted to invade Franco would not allow it.I have to also point out to you that neither would Generals Patton, Eisenhower, Feild Marshall Montgomery would agree with you. Gibralter is a "very" strategic location. Obviously both Hitler and Franco thought it had value.

I wish you well.

During WWII, there was no safe passage possible for ships through the Straits of Gibraltar without control of Gibraltar itself. The passage is too narrow, and guns from the British fortifications could control everything that passed.

Hitler did want the Straits, and did ask Franco to attack the British. He even offered air help, ground forces, and naval assault forces to assist.

Franco turned him down, indicating that any foreign soldiers, including the Germans, on Spanish soil, would be considered invaders. In turn, to keep from making it look like he'd turned on Hitler, Franco increased production of materials that the Nazis needed for their war machine, and thereby kept the Nazis happy, although they still wanted Gibraltar.

Even today, the strategic significance of Gibraltar is unparallelled. Absolutely nothing can move through without being detected.

When you consider the change in government that Spain has had, it becomes a lot easier to understand why the British have no intention of ever giving Gibraltar back to Spain. They may suggest referendums in Gibraltar, but they know full well that they people will jettison the idea as quick as it's put on the docket.

Britain would never turn control of something that strategic over to a country that can't be trusted to remain a vigilant ally to them when the chips are down.

Wolf

Ignacio,

I think there's a problem in this reasoning. I don't quite understand why the US is supposed to "match the funds" that Spain gives to NATO in funds given to Spain. We put equipment, money, and men into NATO in a much larger quantity than Spain ever will, and since Spain can "go it alone," as Zapatero has indicated, why in the world would you ever think we "owe" Spain payment for their rightful investment into NATO itself? That doesn't make sense.

Obviously, with the comments Zapatero has made about Bush and our government, I wouldn't give him one dollar in support. He should get his support from his friends in France and Germany, who aren't quite as "outspoken" against us as your President is. To me, giving Spain funds would be like handing it to someone who repeatedly punches you in the face, hoping that he's going to turn into a nice guy and doesn't.

On the phone call from Zapatero to Bush. I thought it was a polite response from the President's people in DC. They indicated that Bush would "get back to him" when he had time, to thank him for calling. If that made Zapatero feel "slighted," he might think about the statements he made in regards to Bush, and the withdrawal of troops from Iraq before he feels he was abused. You might say, he asked for it. Strangely enough, both Schroeder and Chirac were able to get through to Bush and offer their personal congratulations. It kind of tells me that even though they were opposed to our actions, they didn't burn their bridges like Zapatero did with the US.

Now, like it or not, Spain and the US are going to have to live with the ramification of those actions.

Wolf

I think we should give it up guys.

Next thing Ignacio, Cristobo, or Martin will be telling us is that the U.S. backed Castro in his attack of Granada. I don't know how they do it, couldn't be with straight faces, but you have to admit, they spin their webs of lies, half-truths, innuendo, and conspiracy theories almost as well as the U.S. media. Hmmmmm. Well, not quite that well. Really, they are quite amatuerish compared to Dan Rather. But they deserve an 'A' for effort.

I have to agree with Gazpacho, especialy Ignacio gets overly blown with his hate for America. He refered to those that voted Bush as unsophiticated brutes. There must have been some tramatic event in his life for him to feel the US is the cause of all the world's problems. Out of one side of his face he says that Spain does not need the US, then blames the US for not buying a new radar system for Spain. One could go on and on about his outright lies and half truths, but I think the best thing is to ignor his posts and eventually he will get the message and go on down the road. There is another cite he could log onto with his Hate America rhetoric and they would welcome him with open arms.