Dont be Wooley...

As my old mucker Maggie of Thatcher once famouisly said...Dont by wooley......

For our yank bretheren....Dont be wooley...Clinton is about to do a Reagan. Falklands..Wants to get us to talk to Argies again....

Before America starts the old wooley game again, remember a few things...Who was your biggest ally in ww2....Who invaded Iraq with you...Who pays the blood price in Afghanistan too...Who supports your vetos in majority of cases over Isreal in UN...

Who has your Airforce bases in UK, flying ones not for our own defence...Who charges you 60 million dollars a year for their air base...thats the Turks...You get ours for free..

Dont be wooley...If as I've read on just this forum the special relationship is real...Then prove it...It goes both ways...Dont be wooley on this. Clinton must not do a Reagan. Or else please take your aircraft home..Close Fairford and get off Diego Garcia...And most of all remember just who your friends really are.

 

I do not see the comparison between Reagan and Clinton? Please enlighten us. My understanding is that Reagan did provide intelligence and logistical support to Great Britain as well as announced the imposition of economic sanctions against Argentina. Also, you assume that Americans are 100% behind the current usurper. Nobody can be compared to "the one" who gives NTSC formatted DVDs as gifts to a European leader. Clinton is following his direction. Have you forgotton how many were behind Clinton...politically?

You would be more accurate in criticizing the current government alone of which I would agree with you whole heartedly.

 

Do you by chance mean the squadron commander Wooley in Goshawk Squadron ?

//just realized that my post was completely offtopic. ignore


Regards,
TBA

 

I'm sorry Pzr I must have a different view of what happened...How long did it take Reeagan to come down off the fence...Was his support for Americas oldest ally instantanious? Was Haig shuttling around in support of Britian or was he hoping to get a concensus? Indeed we received help from States, I've said that before...do a search on this forum...The time gap was astounding though for two nations supposedly with a special relationship we all talk of...Something Maggie had to remind both Haig and Reagan of...See her own memoirs...Number 10. As for aid...No more no less than the French who were not in any special relationship with us....Haig was told by Maggie not to be wooley...Reagan was told by Maggie to get off the fence and decide just who his major ally was. That is the comparison. It is history. It is unescapable.

 

While Haig was seeking a diplomatic solution, non-public aid was being provided to GB. Reagan's initial hesitance was due to the US having treaties with both parties involved. Haig did make it known that to Argentina that the British would attack and if it came to that, the US would be supporting them. Argentina's reluctance to back off was the deciding factor for Reagan. But GB did get an emergency delivery of updated sidewinder missles for the Harriers as well as intelligence during this time. The US offered the use of the an aircraft carrier as well. So in the month that it took for the British ships to travel, prepare and attack, the US was already supporting the British. So I do not know what it is you are looking for. If Maggie was not impressed with Reagan's response then why award him and Weinberger the KBE?

Reagan provided much more support than what the current US government is doing. So if you are upset about the current state of affairs, that is all fine and dandy but I see no comparison at all.

 

It it were any way possible for any person on this forum to stop Bill Clinton from being Bill Clinton, don't you think they'd have started doing that about 11 years ago?

 

Hello urgh,

well, it's just politics at it's best. The US deperatley needs to make points in South America - as such a move towards the Argentine/Falklands dispute is predestined.

With Brown around chances for the UK to give up its stance on the Falklands IMHO is quite high - therefore the chance for Washington to get some bonus out of this is just as high.

But I do not believe that the US would willingly loose or upset their natural ally in this matter - they are just taking their chance to snatch a twig from the laurel of "promoting friendship and happiness" in the region in case Brown wants to "abandon" the Falklands anyway.

Regards
Kruska

 

My guess is that the average 'Joe' in the States would support the UK, the fact that the oil rig is US owned might help.......... As for the politicans? I think the Yanks value theirs about as much as we value ours, trust 'em as much too!

Politicans struggle with the concept they are elected to REPRESENT us.......having 'Won' the election, they think they should LEAD us..........

Politicans do what politicans do, lie, swindle, deceive, of course they have their bad points too. I don't judge the Yanks by what their Govt does and hope they judge us the same way!

 

I believe it is Obama who needs some kind of foreign affairs coup right about now. IMO, Hillary is focused on the (South) American side. I do not think the American people feel supportive of this tract.

If there is any behind the scenes support, it would be in the form of signed copies of Obama's book "The Audacity of Hope: Thoughts on Reclaiming the American Dream".......just to give y'all some hope.

 

Yes, I am very sure that you are dead right on behalf of Obama - however if it benefits the US, then usually the American people are supportive towards their respective leaders ideas.

I think that is what urgh ment to say - maybe I am wrong and I do not want to place words into urgh's mouth.

Regards
Kruska

 

On somethings I would agree. Generally, the American people view any country South of us as stepchildren who mooch on us. If what you say was the case, I would think that they would be supportive since according to Urgh, the rig is owned by the US.

 

Maybe over here we forget just how powerful the Latino lobby is? When my wife & I toured The South last summer, notices were in Spanish, lots of people from South America working, you kept hearing Spanish. All those votes must count for something.

 

No pzr I never said the rig was owned by usa..Hits did

 

Did you hear they took Lindsey Vonn's Gold medal away? Gave it to Obama because it was determined that he's going downhill faster than she did.

 

The Sidewinders were released frobm Nato stocks in Germany. Taken from RAF Bruggen. For Raf use against Russian Hoardes..They were not flown in especially. Just permission granted to use them out of area.
As you are aware, the offer of a carrier was pie in the sky. With what would we crew it with? What would fly off it...No it was a gesture only.
Why did Reagan have to decide....Thats the point Pzr....what was the problem? Why didnt he do what USA do today with Isreal...Support immediate. What was the choice he had to make....? wHY did Kirkpatrick his sec of state attend a dining in night at Argie embassy against British wishes on eve of invasion when we all knew ships were sailing to evict royal marines...Do you remember her words? I certainly do...A bit like us sending foreign secretary to Ayotohla Khomenis birthday party as revolutionary guards attack your embassy....Support granted...Why the pause..And maggie explains well the politics behind the honoury knighthoods in her memoirs..I suggest you read a copy of heeir own words...Which tell all who want to read it, that she had to furiously take Reagan and Haig aside to remind them who their natural ally was and who was standing on the Berlin wall at that very moment with them...Read it..Its her words..Maggie not my hero by any means but her words are illuminating...She was not best pleased with American allys attitude at the time...Would you like the page numbers....

 

Sorry, I stand corrected.

 

Support is support whether is is immediate or a month in the making. Providing the use of an American carrier, of which I would think would be manned by US personnel, was offered. Whether the sidewinder stocks came from reserves or were shipped straight from the factory, they were provided. Margaret Thatcher stated that "without the Harrier jets and their immense manoeuvrability, equipped as they were with the latest version of the Sidewinder missile, supplied to us by U.S. Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger, we could never have got back the Falklands." Next thing you will be complaining about is the 50 obsolete destroyers Roosevelt handed over to Churchill in the 40's. Support is support.

Support was provided by Reagan.................No support is being provided by Obama. Fact.

 

Guys, THE TRUTH....................Joe Average Yank will stand 4 square behind England. Forget what the politicans do/say....we are a special relationship.................and you're telling me the 101/82nd wanna be stuck next to Argentina's finest..............???

Yeah! Right! OK!

God Bless America.................! Especially the bits South of Mason-Dixie.........

 

In regards to Israel...when a country is confronted by a group of people who have clearly stated they will not stop until Israel and all Jews have been annihilated, can you really pause a month before showing support?

As for the Falklands, I am of the belief that it should be returned to Argentina or gain its own independence. The local inhabitants were clearly not from the UK and the UK's only claim to it is having sent ships to 'claim' the island first while the people would clearly identify with Argentina more then the UK.

 

urqh my lad ....what was the reaction, by the Brits, of Operation Urgent Fury? Was it more or less supportive than the attitude exhibited during your Falklands crisis?