5 ms·

Ironically, that dictatorship was set-up partly in thanks to the US.

627467 6y ago
How is that ironic? Almost all dictatorships in history have overt or not so overt approval from major powers of the time.
aksss 6y ago
Yeah I'm also curious - you mean ironic in the context of this discussion regarding the fate of the Falkland Islands and the United Kingdom, or in some more broader (unrelated) way with regard to the United States as a democracy? Or something different? Genuinely curious, not piling on.
kjs3 6y ago
It's not ironic, it's irrelevant if an unfortunate part of US history. But if you want to derail the conversation to your pet anti-American diatribe, it's a great intro.
- ponker 6y ago
  It’s somewhat ironic in that the US and UK are close allies but the US’ ongoing experiments with regime change created mutiple wars for the UK. Not that the UK hasn’t done its own regime change experiments.
  - kjs3 6y ago
    No, it's not ironic. And it has nothing to do with the Faulklands war. It's just an opening for people like you to pipe up in conversations where it's irrelevant and say "you know, it's ironic (even though it's not) that the US does bad things...", because you want to bring up the fact the US does bad things. We get it. It's true. But it's a derail to insert it when it is neither ironic or relevant.
    - ponker 6y ago
      Lol. Getting July 4th fee fees or something? Need a widdle Lee Greenwood to feel better?
      - fapjacks 6y ago
        Hello, this isn't Reddit, and ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.
  - aksss 6y ago
    It would be ironic in the sense of unintended consequences perhaps, but assumes the US was "intending" to avoid an FI invasion in making its decisions about propping up the Junta. In reality, concerns about the FI were probably miniscule in the foreign policy calculus exercised by the US at the time. Those policy decisions started during the Ford administration. The invasion happened over two decades later, literally a few months after a new general took over the government (i.e. quite suddenly). When the invasion happened the US dropped all support of Argentina and threw their resources behind the UK. The motivation of the US foreign policy decision in late 50's must be seen in the context of the Cold War. In Argentina at the time, the US saw the alternative government as a communist/marxist regime with Soviet support/presence. How many other communist regime changes in the second half of the 20th century do you recall that did NOT adopt expansionist policies under the banner of "reunification"? We can imagine the US thinking the risk of Argentinian expansion was higher with a communist regime than with the Junta, but likely the US was more concerned about who controlled Cape Horn, the vast territory in South America that Argentina already controlled, the proximity to the US, etc. Plus, there was already significant concern about existing marxist movements taking other SA countries (meaning expansionism probably wasn't a huge concern so much as the development of a bloc of discrete soviet satellite states). Argentina was considered a bulwark to those movements. So the FI, safely under UK's wing, probably wasn't a primary motivator of US policy towards Argentina at the time. Maybe there's some other unseen connection between the US and the FI invasion that you or other commenter can point out (e.g. did the US actively consider the fate of the FI in the 50's when they decided to prop up the Junta? Did the Carter administration know there were plans to invade when it softened support for Argentina which Reagan then reversed and enabled such an invasion? Those kinds of may make a better case for a connection and irony in the context of the Falklands War but it would be news to me). Seems like a pretty irrelevant and tenuous comment otherwise.
pjc50 6y ago
One of the things I've never seen a proper history of is how badly the UK failed to win international support. Yes, the area south of the Equator is explicitly excluded from NATO. But the UK got nothing whatsoever from anyone, except maybe a bit of technical assistance from France against the Exocet missiles. And yet the failure of the US to assist didn't impair the rather one-sided "special relationship".
- willyt 6y ago
  Prime Minister Thatcher was strongly advised to seek a diplomatic solution by the UK military leadership at them time and there was considerable international pressure to do so. It was militarily a very risky operation at the very limit of our capabilities.
- gandalfian 6y ago
  Look at the Portuguese fighting retreat from their India colonies twenty years earlier and ask what was the point of the violence? Look at the west's war in Vietnam and ask what was the point? Look at the Falklands and ask???
  - 082349872349872 6y ago
    I'm surprised The Onion hasn't updated their classic article https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-free-market-cap-1819567206 https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-le... for current estimated expenditures. An alt-history counterfactual theory: if the US had not supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan might've joined the Warsaw Pact and then had a peaceful revolution (like almost all the rest) around 1989, with all the attendant advantages for a better version of this century. The following claims to be 1980's afghanistan, but I can't tell if the Boney M soundtrack was original or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRZLwLXU3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRZLwLXU3E (Boney M was apparently popular in Afghanistan, but other videos with the same dancer are to more indigenous tunes) maybe better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrxgwM8h7ek&t=30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrxgwM8h7ek&t=30

How is that ironic? Almost all dictatorships in history have overt or not so overt approval from major powers of the time.

aksss 6y ago

Yeah I'm also curious - you mean ironic in the context of this discussion regarding the fate of the Falkland Islands and the United Kingdom, or in some more broader (unrelated) way with regard to the United States as a democracy? Or something different? Genuinely curious, not piling on.

kjs3 6y ago

It's not ironic, it's irrelevant if an unfortunate part of US history. But if you want to derail the conversation to your pet anti-American diatribe, it's a great intro.

ponker 6y ago
It’s somewhat ironic in that the US and UK are close allies but the US’ ongoing experiments with regime change created mutiple wars for the UK. Not that the UK hasn’t done its own regime change experiments.
- kjs3 6y ago
  No, it's not ironic. And it has nothing to do with the Faulklands war. It's just an opening for people like you to pipe up in conversations where it's irrelevant and say "you know, it's ironic (even though it's not) that the US does bad things...", because you want to bring up the fact the US does bad things. We get it. It's true. But it's a derail to insert it when it is neither ironic or relevant.
  - ponker 6y ago
    Lol. Getting July 4th fee fees or something? Need a widdle Lee Greenwood to feel better?
    - fapjacks 6y ago
      Hello, this isn't Reddit, and ad hominem attacks are not welcome here.
- aksss 6y ago
  It would be ironic in the sense of unintended consequences perhaps, but assumes the US was "intending" to avoid an FI invasion in making its decisions about propping up the Junta. In reality, concerns about the FI were probably miniscule in the foreign policy calculus exercised by the US at the time. Those policy decisions started during the Ford administration. The invasion happened over two decades later, literally a few months after a new general took over the government (i.e. quite suddenly). When the invasion happened the US dropped all support of Argentina and threw their resources behind the UK. The motivation of the US foreign policy decision in late 50's must be seen in the context of the Cold War. In Argentina at the time, the US saw the alternative government as a communist/marxist regime with Soviet support/presence. How many other communist regime changes in the second half of the 20th century do you recall that did NOT adopt expansionist policies under the banner of "reunification"? We can imagine the US thinking the risk of Argentinian expansion was higher with a communist regime than with the Junta, but likely the US was more concerned about who controlled Cape Horn, the vast territory in South America that Argentina already controlled, the proximity to the US, etc. Plus, there was already significant concern about existing marxist movements taking other SA countries (meaning expansionism probably wasn't a huge concern so much as the development of a bloc of discrete soviet satellite states). Argentina was considered a bulwark to those movements. So the FI, safely under UK's wing, probably wasn't a primary motivator of US policy towards Argentina at the time. Maybe there's some other unseen connection between the US and the FI invasion that you or other commenter can point out (e.g. did the US actively consider the fate of the FI in the 50's when they decided to prop up the Junta? Did the Carter administration know there were plans to invade when it softened support for Argentina which Reagan then reversed and enabled such an invasion? Those kinds of may make a better case for a connection and irony in the context of the Falklands War but it would be news to me). Seems like a pretty irrelevant and tenuous comment otherwise.

pjc50 6y ago

One of the things I've never seen a proper history of is how badly the UK failed to win international support. Yes, the area south of the Equator is explicitly excluded from NATO. But the UK got nothing whatsoever from anyone, except maybe a bit of technical assistance from France against the Exocet missiles. And yet the failure of the US to assist didn't impair the rather one-sided "special relationship".

willyt 6y ago
Prime Minister Thatcher was strongly advised to seek a diplomatic solution by the UK military leadership at them time and there was considerable international pressure to do so. It was militarily a very risky operation at the very limit of our capabilities.
gandalfian 6y ago
Look at the Portuguese fighting retreat from their India colonies twenty years earlier and ask what was the point of the violence? Look at the west's war in Vietnam and ask what was the point? Look at the Falklands and ask???
- 082349872349872 6y ago
  I'm surprised The Onion hasn't updated their classic article https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-let-free-market-cap-1819567206 https://www.theonion.com/u-s-to-give-every-iraqi-3-544-91-le... for current estimated expenditures. An alt-history counterfactual theory: if the US had not supported the Taliban in Afghanistan, the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan might've joined the Warsaw Pact and then had a peaceful revolution (like almost all the rest) around 1989, with all the attendant advantages for a better version of this century. The following claims to be 1980's afghanistan, but I can't tell if the Boney M soundtrack was original or not: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRZLwLXU3E https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZRZLwLXU3E (Boney M was apparently popular in Afghanistan, but other videos with the same dancer are to more indigenous tunes) maybe better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrxgwM8h7ek&t=30 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LrxgwM8h7ek&t=30