They would not. A united US/UK was essential to the effort to deter the USSR in its efforts to bring the benefits of Communism to the entire World. The UK was and is very important to the US - not least because it is effectively an unsinkable aircraft carrier for the American forces.
Yes. And, as I said, if the Argentinians had traded aircraft the British would have lost the ability to engage the Argentinians over the islands. An aircraft carrier without it's aircraft is not much use. And Sea Cat, the shipborne AA missile was known to be useless.
After 50, 100, 150 or 200 years, whose opinions are you measuring? A cross section of the country's population who were experiencing events as they happening ... or the opinions of a select group of historians whose main interests are maintaining tenure at their universities ... or achieving approval of their professional peers for publication in learned journals ... or even getting their own 60 minute slot on BBC2?
The USSR was defeated economically, communism could no longer compete with the US arms expenditure and the system imploded. Capitalism won.
You are right Pete but you have to agree that his reputation is currently at a pretty low ebb, and for good reason in my opinion.
If the Argentinian leadership and tactics had been known to have been the equal of British warfare savvy, and their navy a true threat, or even of simply adequate quality, we would not have seen a Falklands conflict in the same form as we did. Or do you believe that the Task Force was sent out on a punt, in the hope that it would be sufficient for the job? The Task Force was sent because there was a very strong possibility that it would succeed. Had there been any real doubt of this, the Falklands invasion would not have even taken place, as Galtieri would have previously been warned off in no uncertain terms by the US. Or, had he proceeded anyway, we would have seen a very different resolution to the issue.
The USSR was defeated because our military capability staved off a series of Soviet invasions long enough for us to maintain the political status quo, whereupon our economic superiority won the ideological/socio-economic war.
I have no doubt that some Chief of Staff said "yes, this can be done", there were also people who thought that it was a highly risky venture. When the task force set off there was a real thought that the Argentinians would back down, but they didn't. There was no guarantee that it would succeed, there was no plan B, it was a gamble that paid off.
Isn't that what I said ? The USSR went bust. It could no longer print enough roubles to pay it's bills. The rouble used to be artificially maintained on a parity with the dollar. A colleague of mine came back from a trip in the 80's and gave me a 50,000 rouble note, it was small change.
It isn't what you said but I'll accept that it is what you meant. I will say though, you didn't seem to acknowledge the point that it was only through Western military might that the superior economic model employed by the West was afforded the time to bankrupt the Soviets. Otherwise, there was a real chance that an increasingly isolated UK and USA would have been bankrupted by an ever-growing Soviet empire.
The interesting part about the Falklands war is that our chief ally, the US, wasn't prepared to get involved to back us up. Had they done so, then there wouldn't have been any war in the first place as Galtieri and the Junta would have caved in. So it's always the UK who has to join American ventures, to give them credibility abroad but when the shoe is on the other foot, somehow the Americans see no reason to give us a hand. In can you hadn't noticed, the Americans are top allies when helping us coincides with their own geopolitical interests. They were quite happy keeping out of WW1 and WW2 you will remember. Only idiocy on the part of our adversaries convinced them to help us out.
As regards Blair's record, I am struggling to think of another British Prime Minister in my lifetime who took the country to war when we hadn't already been attacked. There was no justification for the Iraq war. It was based on a tissue of lies. The war was planned before 9/11 and the "War on Terror" / jihadist narrative was retro-fit to provide justification: "Saddam is in league with Al Qaida". That was pure bullshit as Saddam was pretty secularist and only "got religion" when he thought it was a good card to play to get the country behind him against the Allies. Then there was the famous missing WMD. Blix was pointing out to anyone who'd listen that it was baloney and that nothing could be found, but by this stage, war was inevitable as the Americans were determined to have it and the calendar (it gets mighty hot in Iraq in the summer) determined that the invasion had to kick off right away. The diplomacy was a farce and the sole concession to Blair's credibility in the UK. There never was any intention to solve anything by diplomacy. There couldn't be, as the war had to happen. The war was an end in itself, not an answer to a problem that could be solved by diplomacy. So the question arises: how much was Blair an unwitting patsy, being lied to by the States, how much did he suspect he was being a patsy but in order not to upset the Americans he had to play along with it, and how much did he subscribe to what the Americans were really up to? If he were ever on trial (impeached) for his conduct in the lead-up to the Iraq War, he is going to plead good faith. It would be very difficult to prove otherwise. He can't say "I led the UK into a war so as to safeguard our special relationship with the USA" even if that were the case. He will pretend that he really thought that Saddam had his finger on the button or something similar. After all, that's what he told us. Unless there is a documented smoking gun, he's off the hook, so it's probably a waste of public money trying to prove that he's a lying arsehole. Where's Wikileaks when you need them? What is apparent is that there were plenty of informed people who were questioning all the WMD crap, plenty who didn't believe that Saddam had anything up his sleeve and the mood in the country was anti-war. But he went ahead and did it anyway, didn't he? So you'd have to think that he had his own reasons. We just are the 51st State of the US and we prove it over and over again. Our orders come from Washington and the Pentagon.
Could be "Pete and Tony underneath a tree kissing a dead David Kelly" seeing as he was more slumped under it than hanging from it.
As has been said before - it's amazing how many Argentinians claim that they would die for the Falkland Islands, and how few actually want to live there...
In reality - Argentina's biggest mistake was to actually invade. At the time they thought that if they put a big enough occupation force on the Islands that the British would make all sorts of threatening noises but would eventually back down and there would be a negotiated agreement via the UN - even if it was totally against the British citizens' wishes. What they did in reality, was give the Thatcher government a chance to unite the country and to show the world that Britain was still a power to be reckoned with - something that Thatcher, admittedly, took full advantage of. It was, however, still the right thing to do... But it was also by no means a forgone conclusion that our task-force would be successful, no matter what some people would have you believe. What would have happened if the Argentinians hadn't invaded is that there would probably have been a long process in the UN and by now the Islands would be at least under joint sovereignty - so from that point of view invading was a big mistake... As it stands now, the original military force as it was pre-1982, of about 30 personnel has been replaced by a fully functioning military airfield with jet fighters, a military port, a dedicated Falkland Islands protection vessel, a resident infantry company; about 1200 military personnel - basically "Fortress Falklands" - and a series of British governments that can now never cede the Islands to a foreign power.
Indeed, but that is what "allies" are - countries which support you when helping you coincides with their own geopolitical interests. Così fan tutte. Those interests may be long term ones, not closely connected to the matter in hand, but nonetheless have to be real. The UK has dozens of allies, principally in NATO and the Commonwealth, which we help and support because it is in our interests. Why would a UK government support another country if it was against our interests (short and/or long term) to do so? The American alliance has been the cornerstone of UK foreign and defence policy since 1941, and one of the principal duties of every UK government is to maintain it and strengthen it. If anyone wants to criticise Tony Blair for doing just that, they would be criticising every PM since (and including) Churchill. I am more afraid that David Cameron is not doing this well enough today.
According to the news, David Cameron wants to celebrate the Magna Carter. That should illustrate the level of people we have governing the UK.
I think it would be better to distance ourselves from the yanks and their war mongering foreign policy.
That's true. None of us know exactly what scenario our RN warships, RAF planes, or Army tanks are protecting us from either, but something is sure to crop up and they will then turn out to be useful, or even indispensable. Each new conflict is in some unexpected part of the world, and no-one can predict where the next one will be. The only certain things is that the world will go on containing many violent, aggressive people. Nuclear weapons take many years to create and then last many more years - a Trident replacement system would still be operational in 2050 and beyond. We have no idea what the world will look like then, or what threats our (great-grand-) children may face. The choices are to provide them with weapons just in case they need them ... or leave them empty handed. I think the former is preferable to the latter.
