Where Have You Gone, Iron Lady?
By Mitch Berg
25 years ago, Great Britain didn’t cotton to Britons, or British territory, being fodder for thugs and terrorists. It was 25 years ago today that Argentina invaded the Falklands. A group of 85 British Royal Marines fought back against 1,000 Argentine Marines and Commandos:
As the [Argentine Marine] LVTP column passed the old airfield, they came in range of [British Royal Marine] Lt. Bill Trollope’s section; he gave the order to open fire. The LVTPs were each armed with a 12.7mm machine gun that made these amphibious troop carriers a formidable threat to Lt. Trollope and his small section of Marines. Marine Gibbs, armed with a 66mm anti-tank rocket launcher took aim at the lead Argentine APC and opened fire, but missed. An 84mm Carl Gustav round fired by Marine Brown found its mark and stopped the lead LVTP dead. The Argentine marines inside the LVTP were unhurt and quickly evacuated the vehicle. The other Argentine LVTPs now spread out and opened up with their 12.7mm machine guns on Trollope’s section positions. Lt. Trollope ordered a withdrawal back to Government house, happy that at least one of the Argentines APC would not give the Marines any problems in the near future.
April 3rd, 2007 at 9:40 am
Of course Margret Thatcher was not dumb enough to get the bulk of her armed forces bogged down in Paraguy fighting to install a government friendly to Argentina.
April 3rd, 2007 at 6:30 pm
But rickDFL — congress authorized the Iraq War. A lot of dems voted for it. How stupid were they?
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:27 pm
Not nearly as dumb as the Republican President, Republican Senators, and Republican Congressman who were the driving political force behind the war. But lets not annoy our host by straying off topic.
April 3rd, 2007 at 7:59 pm
Let’s not forget about the UN. It was their SC resolutions we we’re enforcing.
April 4th, 2007 at 8:33 am
Well that is a new one to me, but if you want to admit that, under Republicans, U.S. foreign policy has been delegated to the U.N. don’t let me get in your way.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Since you oppose the War so much you must have read HJR 114, RickDFL. You must know, too, that it was passed by a large majority in the house and senate — many of the ‘yes’ votes were democrat — & that without it Bush could not have sent US soldiers to Iraq.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
Of course Margret Thatcher was not dumb enough to get the bulk of her armed forces bogged down in Paraguy fighting to install a government friendly to Argentina
Wrong on so many levels it’s scarcely worth a response. If you think Iraq and Paraguay are in any way analogous, then you do stand as proof that the Dems should not be allowed anywhere near power.
Not nearly as dumb…
Actually, if you believe in morality and that actions have consequences AND that the Iraq war is wrong AND know that the Democrats in Congress had access to exactly the same information the GOP did, then they are both exactly “as dumb”, but morally decrepit as well.
if you want to admit that, under Republicans…
What, you’re channeling Rew now?
Bush went to the UN and got the approval the left wanted from that august international body. Didn’t need it, but spent 18 months getting it anyway.
Let me know when you want to bring some game.
April 4th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
Oh, yeah, Rick. By your own “logic”, Thatcher did exactly what you describe, deploying to Europe a higher percentage of the British Army’s combat power than the US currently sends to Afghanistan – to fight a cold war that in retrospect she never needed to participate in!
Damn those world leaders and their lack of omniscience!
April 4th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Terry there were 0 “democrat” votes. Learn to use the term “Democratic”. Did your mother fail to teach you proper manners.
Yes, some Democrats did vote for 114, so what? Republicans sold some Democrats on their dumb idea. Not all members of our party are perfect all of the time. All effective opposition to the war has come from the Democratic party. The Republican Party has been almost unanimous in their support for the war. That is why people who want to end the war vote for Democrats. The war was conceived and moved by Republicans. They are responsible for its failure. They are the party of defeat and international humiliation.
April 4th, 2007 at 2:42 pm
The roll on HJR 114 shows that 80 democrats voted in favor of the Iraq war, while 116 voted against it. In the senate 28 Democtrats voted in favor of the Iraq war while 22 voted against it. A clear majority of dems voted in favor of hjr 114 in the senate, hardly ‘some’.
“All effective opposition to the war has come from the Democratic party”.
There has been no “effective opposition to the war”. Troop levels have increased in the last few months.
“That is why people who want to end the war vote for Democrats.” You mean people want to withdraw the troops, not ‘end the war’. Wars end by winning or losing. democrats overall want to end the war by losing because it suits their base & they are foolish enough to think that this is a republican war or Bush’s war, not an American war.
“They are the party of defeat and international humiliation.”
That would be the party that still speaks in terms of victory & defeat. As for ‘international humiliation’, gosh, what do you think the international community will think about the US of the media ever has images of US soldiers abandoning Iraq? You’re letting your defeatism grab you again, and poor soul, you do not even seem to realize that it’s driven by your hate of this president and republicans rather than the facts.
April 4th, 2007 at 3:11 pm
Mitch:
British troops in Europe in the 80s were not fighting they were training. If British troops had been fighting a war with an Iraq level of intensity somewhere, say Paraguy, Thatcher would not have had the deployable troops to recover the Falklands.
If Argentina invaded the Falklands today, would Blair have more or less available military assets, if he had not joined in the Iraq war?
April 4th, 2007 at 3:22 pm
“You’re letting your defeatism grab you again, and poor soul, you do not even seem to realize that it’s driven by your hate of this president and republicans rather than the facts.”
For four years you silly twits have been telling us “things are better than they look, in Iraq”. Is there any point in the last four years when conditions in Iraq were not worse than the Administration was willing to admit at the time. For four years you have closed your eyes to the facts on the ground because they were a threat to your party. In doing so you betrayed our nation and the troops.
Put your money where your mouth is, go take a stroll around Baghdad.
April 4th, 2007 at 6:49 pm
Who the hell are you talking about? I haven’t said “things are better than they look in Iraq”. And I’m not a republican. You say “Is there any point in the last four years when conditions in Iraq were not worse than the Administration was willing to admit at the time.” I don’t know. Were they? Did I say they weren’t? I am not an expert on Iraq. Why are you asking me these silly questions?
And yet use your shabby reasoning to accuse me of having “betrayed our nation and our troops”.
At least you used the word “our”. I guess that’s marginally better than the time you wanted to take away my American citizenship because I supported Michelle Malkin’s right to question the conventional wisdom about Japanese Internment during WW2.
April 5th, 2007 at 8:24 am
OK Terry – I assumed that if you accused someone of “defeatism” about Iraq, you would a least have some idea about the facts on the ground. Frankly it confirms my opinion that you have betrayed our troops and the nation. There could be no greater betrayal than to send troops into harms way and argue that they continue to be kept there when you admit you have no idea about actual conditions on the ground in Iraq.