Not too much a history/political buff, but I heard a passing reference to an invasion of a country called Grenada by the US, and that Grenada was a commonwealth nation?

And I heard that because Grenada was a commonwealth nation, Britain and Canada and etc, should've went to war with the US?

Is this true, or is it false or whatnot?:confused:

AoA will be here in the morning. :D

The Commonwealth is not a mutual defense organisation. It is just a club of nations that were once ruled by Britain. In fact there are very little obligations to the membership. So if a commonwealth nation is invaded there is no reason for the other nations to become involved. In fact two memeber India and Pakistan are at war with each other. So no, the UK, Canada etc need not have gone to war with the US over the invasion. In fact I believe other Carribean Islands who were members of the Commonwealth actually took part in the invasion.

There had been a Cuban-funded revolution there; the invasion was against the Rebels, not the recognized government, which the US re-installed upon its defeat of the revoltuonaries. The rebel forces were holding American citizens captive as well, iirc.

Originally posted by SeleucusNicator
The rebel forces were holding American citizens captive as well, iirc.

I don't think they were. There was, as far as I know, only a percieved threat to the students on the island as a result of the lawlessness; they weren't actually being held hostage.

Oh, and don't ask what The Commonwealth's purpose is, because nobody knows.



*Cough*Empirenostalgia*cough*

Originally posted by Hamlet
I don't think they were. There was, as far as I know, only a percieved threat to the students on the island as a result of the lawlessness; they weren't actually being held hostage.

That is my understanding as well, plus general restriction on movement, inclduign Leaving Grenada, the proximity of Cuban troops, and the possibility of becoming hostage. Been a while, but IIRC it was a leftist socialist (a Mr Bishop the PM?)goverment overthrown by the coup aligned to Cuba?

we need something let us have our nostalgia pleaase :(

I remember seeing a documentary about this "war" which seemed to lack any justification based upon events on the ground (the war not the documentary).


One tragic thing I couldn't help but laugh at was the dumbass US Commander deployed the SEAL (Elite US Navy troops) frogmen to do recon and many drowned (due to the strong currents in the waters they were deployed in and none succeeded in reconning the airfield). It summed up the whole operation...stupid.



The dead:

U.S.-- 19 dead (officially). Add to that those Special Forces they don't put on the official figures I presume...certainly the case with the SAS.

Grenada-- 49 dead and several hundred wounded.

Cuba-- 29 dead and over a hundred wounded


P.S edit: so many typos...work in admin is getting to me!

Originally posted by Emerald Knight
Not too much a history/political buff, but I heard a passing reference to an invasion of a country called Grenada by the US, and that Grenada was a commonwealth nation?

And I heard that because Grenada was a commonwealth nation, Britain and Canada and etc, should've went to war with the US?

Is this true, or is it false or whatnot?:confused:

First, I would love to know where you heard this from, since this sounds suspiciously like the sort of marxist-leninist, self-righteous, inaccurate kaka propagated by the Canadian education system. No offence meant!

Second, Kitten is right to wonder how well-prepared the US forces were for the attack (a common anecdote is that tourist maps were used by many of the forces engaged).

That said, the chief provocation for the invasion was a violent coup d'etat launched by a Stalinist named Bernard Coard, who was serving as a cabinet minister in the leftist Grenadan regime at the time, a regime ruled by Grenadan hero Maurice Bishop. Bishop had seized power from the elected Grenada House of Representatives in a coup in 1979.

Coard allowed his disgust with Bishop's grassroots approach and his anger at Bishop's "moderate" (e.g. pro-Castro was not left enough) policies to go too far. Coard had Bishop - an elected hero of the Grenadan revolution - executed in hiding beside Bishop's wife and several other officials, and took control of the regime by force; Coard's major complaint was that the government wasn't exporting stalinism quickly enough.

As I have said elsewhere in this forum, even the socialist Grenadan ambassador to the UN described the Grenadan public's reaction to the attack as one of "relief," since the turmoil of the days preceding it had taken the island perilously close to permanent stalinist/military rule. And, while many contemporaries dismiss this, several nearby Caribbean states went on record asking the US for the intervention, and contributed troops to the assault.

Sounds justified to me. Yes, the Cold War was a factor. But no blood was shed for oil, there were minimal casualties, self-government and democracy was restored, and all was done with a degree of regional multilateral consulation and support rarely seen in those days. When compared to, um, current plans, the decision to go into Grenada frankly seems hard to second-guess.

R.III

EDIT*I should clarify my use of the word "elected," above: Bishop had been elected to the house as the leader of the opposition before his coup took over in '79.

Im surprised AoA has not chimed in here, since he was there and all...

Originally posted by Richard III
Coard allowed his disgust with Bishop's grassroots approach and his anger at Bishop's "moderate" (e.g. pro-Castro was not left enough) policies to go too far. Coard had Bishop - an elected hero of the Grenadan revolution - executed in hiding beside Bishop's wife and several other officials, and took control of the regime by force; Coard's major complaint was that the government wasn't exporting stalinism quickly enough.


You would think that the socialists would have long before that learned the error of sharing power with bolshivicks or stalinists.

Wasn't the excuse for the war that Americans had been taken prisoner...rather than the Marxist take-over?


Like Iraq...pin it on weapons of mass-destruction rather than Saddam is a tyrant and like all tyrants should hang!

Originally posted by kittenOFchaos
Wasn't the excuse for the war that Americans had been taken prisoner That was the one played up by the media, but was not the main concern in discussions with other governments.

Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola
That was the one played up by the media, but was not the main concern in discussions with other governments.

In fairness it should be noted that it was played up by the media in part because it was played up by Reagan and government press flacks TO the media. But the decision to move was set in motion by the coup, and the potential threat to the students was more a factor in the decision than the reason for it, based on what I've seen.

R.III

To set it straight:

The British were pissed off because the Americans invaded without telling the Commonwealth Office of their plans. It did cause some grief between the Americans and British, the same way, not support us (British) in the Falklands War. After all we would support the US if one of there dependencies got invaded.

Interestingly, was Reagan a Anglo-phobe? It seems some of his plans were be-littled Britain

What could we have done in the Falklands that you couldn't?
Why unnecessarily drag others into a minor regional dispute?

Britain does not support the United States in every military action it engages in. Neither do we. The Falklands War could, most likely, have been solved on the political table, although I salute Thatcher's action to go to war. Had you met fierce resistance, lost more men etc., we would most likely have aided you.

Because we were lucky to beat them, numerically inferior. We were fighting on the otherside of the world, something the Americans have almost perfected.

It would have been nice, considering all the wars are two great nations have fought together.

The USA provided material assitance to GB in the Falklands war. logistics, AWACS, air refuling, Intelligence, regional politics, taken over commitments in the North Atlantic, and, although never admitted officialy, USA carrier groups were just silightly north of the war area for the duration of the conflict, with the only rational reason to be they was to intervene if the Brits asked for help. This I had from two personnel aboard said carriers.
What you might have also missed was the raising of the Defcon status vs USSR during the war. After the Brits went south, the USSR had a surge in naval activity and had an unscheduled exercise moving 12 divsions fron the Caucasus and Central Asian areas to Eastern Europe. Then I got a call from High School class president sying he was not coming to the reunion and asking me to foward so messages and arrangments fro him. I ask why and he just says "I am not comming". He is a B52 pilot. Woops, all SAC leave canceled.

Indeed, without the covert US assistance, the war might not have been so successful. In fact, it mgiht have been a lot less succesful.

Originally posted by joespaniel
Im surprised AoA has not chimed in here, since he was there and all... There is not a lot to add Joe, and I'm not into telling war stories.

Basically the Cubans were using the place to stockpile weapons to be used in a series of planned revolutions throughout the Carribean.

Reagan decided to invade, using the medical students as a pretext.

The operation was ad-hoc, and many mistakes were made, it was the FIRST test of the post Carter era, and the military was rusty, it would improve in each operation.

The thing about the tourist maps is correct, BTW.

There were Cubans there, and there were weapons there, I saw both.

Don't think anyone can say that an invasion was not justified, IMHO - just would have been polite of Ronnie to let the British Govt know!

Im sure Ron and Marge were in bed on this one, figurativly speaking. ;)