Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 16 to 24 of 24

Thread: Reagan tried to halt Falklands response

  1. #16

    Default

    Tatcher is brutally right when she describes the junta move as `stupidī


    Anyway, these are interesting pieces of data; I canīt help wondering what else we may get to know.

    Quote Originally Posted by asgnr View Post
    He was probably keen to prop up the right wing Junta in Argentina. It was still the Cold War and while despicable regimes the Juntas across South America kept the Communists out. Reagan would have rightly seen the humiliation of total defeat in the Falklands as being the end of the Argentine Junta which could possibly be replaced by a Soviet Union friendly government.
    Good point; basically `something like thatī took somehow place in some areas of south America years later, where a low image of the US is significant.

    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    Frankly doesnt surprise me that the Administration would look to peaceful ends first, but I suppose since most think Reagan was a Bloodthirsty cowboy it's a shock to hear he was willing to help explore peaceful reconciliation. and add to that Kilpatrick was pro Argentina versus most of the other cabinet members.
    It provides a very good proof of how biased most of the opinions regarding the US involvement in that conflict are; I wonder if these news will be somehow considerated in future lectures about the conflict.

  2. #17
    Senior Member happyslapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Windsor, United Kingdom
    Posts
    7,560

    Default

    From the Telegraph:

    US wanted to warn Argentina about South Georgia

    The United States wanted to give Argentina advance warning that Britain was going to retake South Georgia in 1982 in a move that would have spelt disaster ahead of the Falklands campaign, according to newly released files.

    The proposal, by US secretary of state Alexander Haig, was intended to show the military junta in Buenos Aires that America was a neutral player and could be trusted to act impartially during negotiations to end the conflict.
    However, the British ambassador in Washington was so appalled that he demanded a categorical assurance it would not happen and warned that any advance notice could lead to devastating submarine or air attacks.

    continues here: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...h-Georgia.html

  3. #18
    Senior Member LineDoggie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    38S MB 3661/8351
    Posts
    33,024

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Gently Benevolent View Post
    She was a one trick pony and did more harm to the UK than the Luftwaffe. A leader like Thatcher would be the coupe de grace for the US economy.
    Luftwaffe killed 51,000+ British Civilians in 2 years. Sorry but those type of comparisons are asinine. Surprised the Hitler card wasnt trotted out

  4. #19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by LineDoggie View Post
    Luftwaffe killed 51,000+ British Civilians in 2 years. Sorry but those type of comparisons are asinine. Surprised the Hitler card wasnt trotted out
    May I correct myself. My reference to the Luftwaffe is to the destruction of British industry not the loss of life. I am actually surprised that you are surprised as although Thatcher was vile she was not a brutal murderous dictator.

  5. #20
    Senior Member custodes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Save the world, off a shrink.
    Posts
    11,495

    Default

    I doubt the President was trying to "halt" anything. Slow it down maybe.

  6. #21
    the Ralph Wiggum of Mp.net. timetraveller's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    In a house
    Posts
    8,403

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Gently Benevolent View Post
    May I correct myself. My reference to the Luftwaffe is to the destruction of British industry not the loss of life. I am actually surprised that you are surprised as although Thatcher was vile she was not a brutal murderous dictator.
    if by you also mean the shipyard workers on the clyde they were stubborn to accept change in working practices ..

  7. #22
    Senior Member Mackie's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Stuttgart
    Posts
    7,036

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by timetraveller View Post
    if by you also mean the shipyard workers on the clyde they were stubborn to accept change in working practices ..
    Economically, Gently is pretty right. Thatcher took the the fast but unsustainable way. Same for Reagan.

  8. #23
    Falcons FTW Kilgor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Joh Country
    Posts
    14,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mr Gently Benevolent View Post
    She was a one trick pony and did more harm to the UK than the Luftwaffe. A leader like Thatcher would be the coupe de grace for the US economy.
    You must be talking about the last Labor admin under the Joker and the Cyclops.

  9. #24

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kilgor View Post
    You must be talking about the last Labor admin under the Joker and the Cyclops.
    Despite their incompetences they did not cause the same harm to industrial and utility infrastructure as Thatcher.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •