Not only would we have blasted the Argentinian forces there to hell, we probably would have invaded Argentina and imposed new leadership. Yes, even Obama would do this.
I don't know about her comparisons with Hawaii, but just saying, "Okay, you can have it" would make the UK look INCREDIBLY weak in the eyes of the whole world.
I honestly don't see how anybody could think she made the wrong move there.
I agree with this pretty much. Since Vietnam the USA would only get into conflicts it thought it would absolutely win. Maybe with good reason. But if the USA's Falklands were attacked they would never go in for the whole of Argentina. That's outright imperialism and would only piss off the whole of South America. The USA needs the be nice but tough if screwed with, with the friends in our hemisphere.
shareI didn't even know anyone questioned her response. Of course you're right - as was she.
But then again, it was 2000 people and thousands of sheep 11,000 miles away. Maybe they could have worked something out.
I want the doctor to take your picture so I can look at you from inside as well.
Unfortunately, lots of people questioned her response at the time, and they still do. Bottom line is that the Falklanders themselves wanted to remain British, no matter how few of them there were.
shareIf it was a US Territory, it wouldn't have happened.
With the withdrawal of the Royal Navy guard ship from the region the Argentinean Junta thought the UK had lost interest in the Falklands and as such wouldn't have the stomach for a fight over a few rocks inhabited by a few hundred people, they needed something to distract their own populous from the horrible state of affairs in that country.
Ironically if they would have waited a few years the cuts planned by the British government to the Royal Navy would have made re-taking the islands almost impossible.
The truth of it is I believe the UK didn't have a choice as a nation we would have declined further in status and confidence if we didn't take the islands back.
Today Argentina has no military capability to take such aggressive actions like that again; all they can do is stand on the sidelines shaking their fists.
Th
Today Argentina has no military capability to take such aggressive actions like that again; all they can do is stand on the sidelines shaking their fists.
If the Falklands were a US territory, the Argentines would have never attacked at all because they would have feared US reprisal on many fronts, not just militarily. US diplomatic and economic sanctions would have been crippling alone.
I doubt the US would have attacked the Argentine mainland, but the fear probably was that the US *could* strike the Argentine mainland anytime, anywhere. I think there's some small chance that the US could have hit a coastal base used to support the invasion, if only as a demonstration of power and as a means of getting Argentine to hide their assets before the US hunted them down.
The US would have done what it usually does, establish air supremacy, deny any sea presence, blast any concentrated force on the island and then chopper in ground forces to neutralize the rest with close air support.
The Argentines attacked because they thought Britain was too weak to respond at all and that the US would stay out of it for reasons of diplomacy. I've read the US supplied Britain with intelligence, and some of it they would have had anyway as part of NATO. My guess is the US wouldn't have let Britain outright lose as they needed the illusion of British capability to help keep the Soviets in check to some degree.
As was the case with Kuwait the United States would liberate the Falkland Islands then conduct a covert campaign to overthrow the Argentine government.
share