Joe Biden on the Falklands conflict, 1982

[Null/Void]

 

[Kaptaan]

You know one of my high school class mates [ 1976-79] fought in this war. Lost both legs. Came back a cripple. Eventually got married. Wife left him and in his 40s he killed himself with over dose. Wars are tragic affairs and suffering can play out decades later.

 

[Null/Void]

You know one of my high school class mates [ 1976-79] fought in this war. Lost both legs. Came back a cripple. Eventually got married. Wife left him and in his 40s he killed himself with over dose. Wars are tragic affairs and suffering can play out decades later.

I never understood the Argentinians for the whole Falkland debacle and this proves the Anglo-American relationship or the transatlantic relationship will always be strong regardless of what era we live in tho we do have a large Irish diaspora here but they are mostly plastic paddies at this point

 

[Nilgiri]

Learned nothing from this other than he was always a bottom tier talking head in DC. This was him at his best too lmao.

Oh and that the media at least questioned people assertions (whatever their affiliation) to some degree back then.

Now its just sickening.

BTW his foreign policy "instinct" overall is complete shambles (even obama admin defence secretary actually went on the record calling that out lol).

Flipping a coin would have produced lot better, he literally over his career has struck near 0....you have to actually try to be that bad... to be that level of bad. Ridiculous.

 

[Nilgiri]

I never understood the Argentinians for the whole Falkland debacle and this proves the Anglo-American relationship or the transatlantic relationship will always be strong regardless of what era we live in tho we do have a large Irish diaspora here but they are mostly plastic paddies at this point

Its not hard to understand, domestic pressures/tensions (if you look at say what the peron factions were already doing w.r.t removing support) seeking easy foreign outlet to deflect/win on etc.

It was a gamble and they (Galtieri junta) gambled badly with the wrong game and got called out.

 

[Ryder]

Its not hard to understand, domestic pressures/tensions (if you look at say what the peron factions were already doing w.r.t removing support) seeking easy foreign outlet to deflect/win on etc.

It was a gamble and they (Galtieri junta) gambled badly with the wrong game and got called out.

Falklands was also next to Argentina and barely defended. To the Argentines it was ripe for takeover. Argentines underestimated the British not to mention Galtieri's dicatorship was under threat of being overthrown by domestic issues so a war was perfect to unite the masses under patriotism and nationalism. Falklands plays a role in Argentinian irredentism. They believe the islands belong to them they also have territorial disputes with Chile.

What makes it sad how Galtieri sent young conscripts to their deaths.

 

[Nilgiri]

Falklands was also next to Argentina and barely defended. To the Argentines it was ripe for takeover. Argentines underestimated the British not to mention Galtieri's dicatorship was under threat of being overthrown by domestic issues so a war was perfect to unite the masses under patriotism and nationalism. Falklands plays a role in Argentinian irredentism. They believe the islands belong to them they also have territorial disputes with Chile.

What makes it sad how Galtieri sent young conscripts to their deaths.

Yes, Chile actually helped the UK with some intel regarding the Falklands war and Argentina.

Galtieri (like nearly all autocrat in uniforms) placed little human worth in his grunts in the end.

They (to him) were just chips on the table to gamble with like I referenced earlier.

Combine this with presence of conscription and it get doubly worse, as you dont even have volunteers-only.

Uniformed-autocrats that started out in uniform but do not shed it when entering politics (in fact use it to take over political reins) stand out for reason among the great noble leaders that could delineate this (and take on leadership in political sense only...after their military service and role) like say Washington, Ataturk, Ike etc.

 

[Kaptaan]

Falklands was also next to Argentina and barely defended. To the Argentines it was ripe for takeover. Argentines underestimated the British not to mention Galtieri's dicatorship was under threat of being overthrown by domestic issues so a war was perfect to unite the masses under patriotism and nationalism. Falklands plays a role in Argentinian irredentism. They believe the islands belong to them they also have territorial disputes with Chile.

What makes it sad how Galtieri sent young conscripts to their deaths.

Falkland Islands [Isles Malvinas] are literally on the front door of Argentina at barely 20 minutes by air. On the other hand they are over 8,000 miles and probably 15 hours flight time from UK. Even the long rage RAF Vulcans had to refuel at Ascention Islands.

Insofar as Galtieri needing to grab Isles Malvinas to consolidate his power the same applied to PM Margaret Thatcher who constructed the edifice of Iron Lady by launching the military operation to free islands that had and still have nominal economic value despite alk of oil reserves in the region.

Ultimately this war was about hubris and political expediancy. Elections were coming up and PM Thatcher had pushed through some very difficult, divisive reforms and was deeply unpopular in parts of UK. A war and victory would go on to establish Thatcher in the myth she still is held in UK.

The late and great Tony Benn said "we cannot kill for flags".

The victory itself looked at times about to slip. The clincher was United States of America. The Argentinians badly made a mistake about USA. When push came to shove it sided with it's maternal Anglo-Saxon parent. The critical factor was not on the ground but in the air. The Arg-Af proved to be capable fighting force and wreaked havoc on British ships.

The only way of blunting this air offensive by Argentina [keep in mind Arg., airbases were only 20 minutes from the Falklands was Royal Navy Harrier jets but these came in limited numbers. However USA supplied Britain with the latest sidewinder air to air missiles which gave Royal Navy jets edge over Arg., fighters and that tilted the battle in favour of Britain. Rest is history.

 

[Null/Void]

Insofar as Galtieri needing to grab Isles Malvinas to consolidate his power the same applied to PM Margaret Thatcher who constructed the edifice of Iron Lady by launching the military operation to free islands that had and still have nominal economic value despite alk of oil reserves in the region.

Ultimately this war was about hubris and political expediancy. Elections were coming up and PM Thatcher had pushed through some very difficult, divisive reforms and was deeply unpopular in parts of UK. A war and victory would go on to establish Thatcher in the myth she still is held in UK.

The late and great Tony Benn said "we cannot kill for flags".

Reagan and Thatcher were basically of the same cloth they were Pro-Big Corporate Conservatives who appealed to "populist" sentiments of the British and American people I mean in terms of US interventions Reagan did a "small" little invasion of Grenada back in 1983 prior to the 1984 Presidential Elections other was the intervention was Lebanon but that ended being a debacle with Marines being blown up in those barracks in 1983