It is disappointing. Soon or late (in fact, sooner than later) you find the damned gap! I know, I know, in debates about how beautiful monuments are, you can keep manners; but damn, just as politics are involved, everything gets upside down in a twinkling of an eye!
We all like travelling, we all like nice views, yummy food and exotical traditions, and yeah, I guess this Madridman site is about travels, mostly. But I would like to see for once, only once, someone being able to understand the mindset of the "other side". I for one am quite fedup of being labelled "US-hater" of "far leftist" for holding some opinions that it took me a long time of reading and thinking to shape.

It is a pity that MM locked the Florida Ballots thread, just when I was starting to agree on some of the things that the Americans were writing. I don`t see the Grenada incident as some shameful imperialist action, but rather as the American version of the Perejil ("Parsley island") incident. And yeah, I see now (I didn`t know a word of it) that locals had called for help. All right, I guess.
I am also happy that the UK won the Falkands island war. It is good that they won, since they didn`t start it. It is good, also, because the final defeat of Argentina helped to kick the military regime out of power. If the US had necessarily to take part in the war, I guess they had to stand on the British side, although sure our American friends will agree that the US would never, in one million years, have helped any country against the UK. You know just as good as I do, that this will never happen.
I would like to state, for the record, that the UK covered itself in dishonor during that short war. Public opinion, especially certain tabloids, ran into a frantic rally of filthy jingoism. The Americans, as far as I know, have never displayed such a disgusting reaction against an enemy. I have always seen the Americans as noble people, and nothing in the horrible events of these latter years has made me change my mind. I may dislike the foreign policy of your government, but it is completely obvious that your public opinion believes all the time that you have good reasons to do what you do.

"In 1982, the UK sank a ship carrying 1200 naval conscripts in a fight over two rocks the British had forgotten they had.
The ship in question, the Belgrano, was so old that it was to be turned into a museum at the end of the year; was armed with a single gun with a 14-mile range as against the 20-mile range of guns on British warships; and was sunk without warning, without declaration of war, in international waters, with two torpedoes from a nuclear submarine, while heading back to Argentina. The officer responsible for the sinking, Capt. Wreford-Browne, returned to Britain as a "war hero", and was rewarded with a medal.

"DID 1200 ARGIES DROWN?" "GOTCHA!" [headlines in British tabloid press, i.e., The Sun, etc..]

Prior to this incident, in which 366 Argentinans were burned alive or drowned, not a single British subject had yet been killed, because the Argentinans took the Falklands by firing their weapons in the air after 17 years of negotiations, although they were killed by the dozens in so doing (source of information: Financial Times, 2 April 1982. Other sources dispute this, and maintain that only one Argentinan was killed. What is beyond dispute is that no British subjects had yet been killed)"
Really, I don`t imagine anything remotely like THIS being carried out by the American army or the American public.

Cristobo Carrín wrote: I agree, but we don't live in a Utopian society. Most people have their opinions forumulated and then pour cement over those ideas, never to change them, and no amount of reasoning will make a difference. It's sad, yes, but that's the way most humans are.

Saludos, MadridMan

You are right. The behaviour of the lower order of British newspapers, known as the tabloids (although some quality publications including The Times are now produced in tabloid format)are frequently disgraceful.
You may be interested to know that there have been documentaries on the sinking of the Belgrano broadcast on British tv. Even in Britain it was a contraversial action. The latest excuse for the attack was that it was meant as a way to stop all Argentinian warships from coming anywhere near the islands. The British fleet was heavily reliant on 1 aircraft carrier - if this was sunk the invasion force would have had to return home. So the decision was taken to attack any major naval vessel that could have been a threat. In one of the documentaries, the captain of the Belgrano stated that were the roles reversed, he would probably have done the same (I don't know whether this relates to following an order to attack, or deciding to attack)
I think most right-minded people feel that this is a war that should have been avoided. I don't think it achieved anything positive...

Like it or not politics are something that we will never agree on. Can we get on to talking about something more important, like where the best brothels in England and Spain are? Or how shaply Britney Spiers butt is. Worry about the important things in life, like when will be the next time you get laid, or where your next beer is coming from.

Desert Dweller,

Perhaps you had not yet joined this board, or were temporarily absent, but we (Americans) were lambasted for the Janet Jackson event. We were berated on this board for not caring about the "real issues" and our obsession with her exhibitionism, which frankly, I could care less about. So I guess, it seems anyway, unless you have liberal, pro-Europe things to contribute, your considered a second-class citizen on this board.

Madridman,

For once, can't you act a little fair, and shut down a lively discussion about a topic after some left-wing liberal comments are made? Well, you probably won't, and I can pretty much tell what's on your mind right now. But no, until you ban me, I'm still an active participant. You've tried your best to remain neutral, but when your leaning do show, it is quite obvious you don't agree with us supporting the U.S. Pity.

gazpacho wrote: While your comments to me really deserve no reply on my part, since you're obviously attempting to draw me into a sparring match (I know you get a kick out of that), my leanings, while no secret and with which I'm perfectly content, are really none of your business. And while YOUR leanings are none of MY business either, yours are crystal clear as well. So between the two of us, we're just about neutral! Hey, that's great!

I have NO problem with you or anyone supporting the USA. EVEN I support the USA for the good it does. But I'm not willing to support EVERYTHING blindly. That's just downright dumb.

Now let's see... where's that "AUTO-BAN USER" button??

So tiresome. So silly. So... (I'd better quit now)...,

MadridMan

P.S. to gazpacho, I won't be replying to this thread any longer. It bores me. So looks like you'll have the last word if you wish to take it (and I'm sure you will ). ENJOY! :p

Madrid Man, none of us blindly accepts everything that the US does. But we are not going to stand by and idly take the abuse from every second stringer that just finished reading "Das Kapital."Communism, like Marx is dead, and it is not the resposiblity of the US taxpayer to go around and bankroll the world's social disorders.

I will be the first to tell you the US has some problems.But I further will point out that I do not have to stand idly by, and buy into every thing that is dished out, from either our own government or some second string hood in a far away land.

Downright Dumb,

Can I change my nickname on this board MadridMan? I like that.

C'mon, supporting everything the U.S. does, that would be downright dumb. The U.S. has a deplorable education system, an unjust tax system, that is, unjust to the top producers, terrible immigration laws, and a welfare system, that though it is improving, still provides too much of a burden on those that work for a living. Oh yeah, and a real problem. A drug epidemic that we shadow box with, but don't enact the draconian measures to stop it. If those things were attacked by our friends in Europe, I'd be the first to agree. Instead they criticize the institutions that make us so powerful.

Thanks for responding to my post, and I suppose I was a little too aggressive in my opinions about you. :o Like I said before, I liked it better when you remained impartial both overtly and covertly.

-Downright Dumb

Cristobo, if you think the British tabloids were horrible about the Argentinians then you are probably right. But they are horrible about every country that hates the British. However, I believe that the Argentinian press and government were equally vile about the British. I remember the Argentinians saying that all British soldiers were homosexuals and that if Argentinian soldiers fell into British hands they would be in trouble. There was a lot of negative propaganda on both side. As far as overall casualties go, I think the losses were about equal on both sides. I have been to Buenos Aires and seen the war memorial to the Argentinians who died in the Falklands. It is very moving and I have the feeling the whilst not forgetting what happened people are looking to the future.

Querido Cristobo,

You state: "But I would like to see for once, only once, someone being able to understand the mindset of the "other side".

I wholeheartedly agree with you!

I think largely our problem is the method we are using to communicate. We cannot see each other when we write; we cannot see our verbal expressions; we cannot hear the intonations of our voices; we cannot see our body language,and, yes in many cases language limitations, it all amounts, sadly to incomplete communications, and miscommunications.

I believe that everyone on this MM board are people of good will, and it is an honor to know all of you and be able to discuss, even heatedly, the issues that concern all of us.

But, our problem is that this is a limited methodology... if we could only see each other when we speak, then our conversations would make sense!

Saludos,
Carmen