I’m not seeing it. What was the difference you’re talking about in postwar relations between the United States and Iraq and those between Britain and Argentina? How was one a finished job and the other wasn’t? And what did Thatcher do to cause it?
Both Bush and Thatcher hoped that regime change would occur without their help. Thatcher’s wish came true; GHWB’s did not.
why so many threads about the Falklands?
Maybe someone has an assignment to write
I don’t feel wishing and/or hoping for a result really counts as doing something, even if the hoped for result occurs.
There have been three recent threads about various aspects of the Falklands conflict and they were all started by the same person, who joined the board a couple of weeks ago. They identify themselves as a teacher. So I’m assuming this is just a topic they are interested in.
I suppose the mods could merge the threads together but I don’t feel it’s enough of a problem to push for it.
Neither do I, but tell that to ideologues who’s entire world view is shaped by faith.
I’m pretty sure Bush sent thoughts and prayers after Desert Storm. But Jasmine seemed to be saying in her posts that she felt Thatcher had done something different than America did.
Hi JRDelirious,
I have questions about your message. Could you help me with them?
- What is IRL timeline?
- Why did the US policy apparatus consider Argentine Juntas were the best way to prevent the commies from spreading?
Thank you.
(a) “IRL timeline” = In Real Life timeline. As in, of the possible outcomes they considered, the one they worried about (Junta collapses quickly) was the one that did happen.
(b) That would be a matter for a whole monograph on mid-20th century hemispheric geopolitics, and going in depth on it is not for this thread IMO (and I respectfully decline to start an in-depth thread about it). Supersimplified version is they felt stopping any possible communist spread trumped any other consideration, and democracy was a risk of bringing people not necessarily 100% aligned with US interests into power (e.g. the Peróns in Argentina, Allende in Chile, Bosch in the DR, Arbens in Guatemala, etc.)
Thank you very much for your response.
Any articles on why the US felt stopping commies trumped any other consideration that you would recommend if I want to know more about it?
Thank you.
Someone Is Out to Get Us: A Not So Brief History of Cold War Paranoia and Madness by Brian Brown
Yet another reason for me to consider that Reagan was a piece of shit. His legacy is this, and the Iran-Contra deal.
I mean the UN Human Rights Commission is about as meaningless as anything has ever been. Additionally Reagan’s extending a fig leaf to the Junta is nowhere close to “his legacy”, more like a “Minor footnote to it.” U.S. leaders represent U.S. interests, which sometimes means breaking bread with unsavory people. (Or I guess FDR shouldn’t have treated with Stalin.) Iran-Contra was a minor scandal and nothing more.
On the flipside Reagan massively improved our tax code, made changes that gave us an incredible period of wealth growth for arguably decades, shored up Social Security, passed Immigration Reform (including an amnesty for undocumented), crushed the PATCO strikers, escalated the Cold War in a positive way for the United States, helped bleed the Soviets in Afghanistan…the list goes on. Reagan restored an America undermined by four years of disastrous leadership by Carter (the most inept President of the 20th century.)