Does anyone remember Reagan bombing a little island called Grenada

[malaise]

on the pretext of rescuing some American medical students?

In reality the horrific Beirut Barracks bombings took place on October 23, 1983.
Reagan then bombed Grenada two days later - from the 25th October 1983.

Few people ever made the link - Reagan and his goons could not bomb Lebanon so they bombed a helpless little island.

[liberal N proud]

1. Before that, no one knew where Grenada was.

[malaise]

2. I did

[Lifelong Protester]

59. Well, my spouse lived there for a year or so

so I knew where it was. And could not believe that Reagan wanted to take an island about the size of South Saint Paul.

[Heywood J]

84. Isn't that where grenadine comes from?

[kelliekat44]

86. I remember the students saying afterwards that they were not in danger UNTIL the US bombed. nt

[Lydia Leftcoast]

88. I knew where Grenada was, because when I was in sixth grade

we each had to write a report on a Caribbean island and make a presentation to the class. (The sixth grade social studies curriculum in that town concentrated on the history and geography of Canada, the Caribbean, and Latin America.)

I drew Grenada out of a box that the teacher passed around.

Only I and everyone else thought that it was pronounced like the name of the Spanish city of Granada.

[geek tragedy]

3. the Grenada stunt was planned well in advance, no?

I'm sure they had it on the shelf ready to go at the most convenient time, though.

Ugh, what a shitheel he was.

[bananas]

51. Yes - it was phase one of "overcoming the Vietnam Syndrome"

followed by invasions of increasing size: Panama and Iraq.

Grenada was a first test of the new army.

The neocons in Japan will be doing the same thing.

Shinzo Abe will need to test his new army,
they will pick a small island to invade,
and make up some bizarre justification.

[Tom Ripley]

111. +1000

[bananas]

55. Japan is already planning something similar.

Japan has been taken over by right-wing neocons.
They've said they are going to build up their military.
They've passed an extreme secrecy law.
They will need to test their new military,
no doubt they are already planning some test case.

[geek tragedy]

63. eh, a militarized Japan is a much bigger problem for China than it is for us. nt

[bananas]

66. It's part of US military policy set by US neocons. nt

[geek tragedy]

67. neocons would prefer that Japan be unarmed so we would have

what they lustily describe as "full spectrum domination"

[bananas]

62. Japan Times: For 'no war' Article 9, any reinterpretation will do

http://www.japantimes.co.jp/community/2013/11/20/issues/for-no-war-article-9-any-reinterpretation-will-do/

Just a test: Ground Self-Defense Force troops train in Gotenba, Shikuoka Prefecture, in 2012. Prime Minister Shinzo Abe recently replaced the director-general of the powerful Cabinet Legislation Bureau, which interprets the Constitution, with someone who agrees with his own reading of Article 9 — essentially, that it allows for collective self-defense. | AP

For ‘no war’ Article 9, any reinterpretation will do

In ironic twist, could neighbors use similar rationales to justify a Fukushima foray?

by Colin P.A. Jones
Nov 20, 2013

<snip>

The CLB has the final word when it comes to interpreting the famous “no war” provisions of Article 9, largely by default. Although constitutionally the Supreme Court is the “court of last resort with power to determine the constitutionality of any law, order, regulation or official act” (Article 81), it abdicated this role decades ago with respect to Article 9, declaring national defense to be a “high-level political issue” in which the judiciary should not get involved.

Somewhat ironically, therefore, making Yamamoto a justice probably has the merit of rendering his views on this part of the Constitution harmless. It also opened the door for Abe to install in the CLB a more pliable replacement in the form of Ichiro Komatsu, a former diplomat said to support a more aggressive interpretation of Article 9 and collective self-defense.

<snip>

... Komatsu’s appointment reflects a strategy of constitutional change first through reinterpretation, at least on the subject of defense. Within weeks of taking office in December 2012, Abe had already re-established an advisory panel of carefully selected “knowledgeable persons” to deliberate on reinterpreting Article 9, particularly to enable participation in collective security activities. Helpful suggestions made at the panel’s most recent meeting on Oct. 16 included (I am paraphrasing): “It would violate international law to respond to events requiring collective self-defense through an expansive interpretation of unilateral self-defense”; “whether to allow collective self-defense isn’t even a constitutional problem, it’s a policy problem”; “Collective self-defense is a right, not a duty”(?!); and my personal favorite, “Just put an end to the prior interpretation by calling it a mistake.”

<snip>

[okaawhatever]

70. No it wasn't. Our response was crafted pretty quickly once the coup started. The Prime Minister has

now admitted asking for help from the US, so we can probably go by the date of his request.

[TBF]

4. I am probably one of the few

who still refers to the Falklands as Las Malvinas - and thankfully he did not bomb them as well. But he did issue economic sanctions against Argentina.

He was such a damaging president in so many ways.

[malaise]

6. I mentioned Los Malvinas in a thread last week

reminding all that Thatcher said the Brits on the island wanted to remain British so she had to defend them. Reagan did not want that war but he deferred to his equal - the other scumbag - Thatcher.

[TBF]

11. Awesome -

I'm glad someone remembers. I did a paper about it in college at the time so it stuck with me ...

[Lifelong Protester]

60. I remember that also. I was working at a bank

in Michigan, going to grad school at night. One morning, one of the bank officers came into the break room and announced there was a new war, and we'd never guess who were the combatants-well, none of us did guess Great Britain and Argentina.

[Nye Bevan]

41. In the March 2013 referendum, 99.8% of Falklanders voted to remain British.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_referendum,_2013

So do you think Mrs Thatcher was just pretending that the Falklanders wanted to remain British? Argentina's military junta should have just been allowed to get away with grabbing the islands, which were inhabited by the British before Argentina even existed as a country?

BTW it's always amusing to hear the president of Argentina refer to the Falklanders as an "implanted population", while speaking in Spanish.

[malaise]

42. I don't think she was pretending

World powers are always grabbing land but Los Malvinas are at least next to Argentina so I have to assume that whoever is running Argentina must have had a more rational claim. I do wish that one day the indigenous people of the hemisphere will take back their lands.

Remember though that the American president speaks American English not the languages of the indigenous Americans.

[Nye Bevan]

45. Ah, so it's OK for big countries to grab small islands that are "next to" them.

Even when those small islands had an established population that dates back to before the big country even existed.

Interesting doctrine.

[malaise]

47. Which big country - Spain, England, Argentina, the USA, Russia

It's all a mess.

[MADem]

56. I think anyone rowing from Argentina to the Falklands wouldn't call 'em "next" to one another.

Not even slightly. It's nearly a thousand miles out to sea!

And it's not like Spanish is the language of the island, either or there's an abundance of hispanic cultural leanings woven into the fabric of the place. It's more British than Britain in many regards, and has been for a long while--they've been running the joint since 1833.

The population, estimated at 2,932 in 2012, primarily consists of native Falkland Islanders, the majority of British descent. Other ethnicities include French, Gibraltarian, and Scandinavian. Immigration from the United Kingdom, Saint Helena, and Chile has reversed a population decline. The predominant and official language is English. Under the British Nationality (Falkland Islands) Act 1983, Falkland Islanders are legally British citizens.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

[Nye Bevan]

57. I guess the doctrine some are pushing is "nearest big country gets 'em"

even if the nearest big country is 1000 miles away.

[MADem]

61. Yes...it's a bit simplistic and silly, and to hell with a hundred and bunches years of history and

culture, too, I suppose!

[TBF]

77. Britain ran this "joint" as well -

the US is going on 300 years. But that doesn't change the fact that "settlement" is a euphemism for European land grab. And the indigenous folks are still "housed" on reservations.

[MADem]

83. I don't see the people of the Falkland Islands writing a Declaration of Independence do you?

Look, if you are going to cough up an "example," at least make it similarly equivalent. The people of the Falklands LIKE their association with Great Britain; they key their pound off the UK pound, they have British citizenship along with their FI affiliation, their language is English, their school system is compulsory and classically British, their customs are British and have been since the early 1800s.

If you want to whine about "land grabs" in USA you're also going to have to yell at the French and Spanish as well--it's not like Britain was the only one with their fingers in the pie. And if you really want to get into the topic, those people in Argentina trying to "grab" that FI land got their culture and customs by way of MADRID. So, what makes it "OK" for a bunch of people who came out of Madrid to swipe an island in the middle of nowhere from a bunch of people who came out of London? Because, ya know....errrr....indigenous! Yeah, that's the ticket!

If you seriously think that Argentinian military dictatorship that commenced that ill-advised adventure was trying to swipe the Falklands for "indigenous peoples," well, Chris Christie has a bridge to sell you.

[TBF]

89. I see ... so if you move to a country,

write a declaration of freedom from still another country, and massacre the indigenous folks you found on those lands then you have done the job properly.

Columbus Day? True Legacy: Cruelty and Slavery
Posted: 10/11/2010 1:43 am

Once again, it's time to celebrate Columbus Day. Yet, the stunning truth is: If Christopher Columbus were alive today, he would be put on trial for crimes against humanity. Columbus' reign of terror, as documented by noted historians, was so bloody, his legacy so unspeakably cruel, that Columbus makes a modern villain like Saddam Hussein look like a pale codfish.

Question: Why do we honor a man who, if he were alive today, would almost certainly be sitting on Death Row awaiting execution?

If you'd like to know the true story about Christopher Columbus, please read on. But I warn you, it's not for the faint of heart.

<snip>

There are several problems with this. First of all, Columbus wasn't the first European to discover America. As we all know, the Viking, Leif Ericson probably founded a Norse village on Newfoundland some 500 years earlier. So, hat's off to Leif. But if you think about it, the whole concept of discovering America is, well, arrogant. After all, the Native Americans discovered North America about 14,000 years before Columbus was even born! Surprisingly, DNA evidence now suggests that courageous Polynesian adventurers sailed dugout canoes across the Pacific and settled in South America long before the Vikings.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/eric-kasum/columbus-day-a-bad-idea_b_742708.html

[MADem]

90. Trying to pretend that the Falklands has any relationship to USA is a huge fail, you know.

Point to the "indigenous peoples" who are sequestered in a small area of the islands on "reservations" that were created by treaties.

Oh...wait.

There aren't any. No treaties, no reservations...and no indigenous peoples.

And--one more time, since you glossed over it (that's politespeak for "ignored it&quot before--if you think the dictator-led Argentine military that tried to wrest the Falklands from the protection of the UK in 1982 were doing that for the benefit of "indigenous peoples," Chris Christie has a great big honking bridge he'd be happy to sell you at a sucker's discount.

[TBF]

92. Western propoganda.

Educate yourself:

The first buildings in Las Malvinas – or the Falklands as the British call the islands in the South Atlantic – were houses made of stone and were built by Argentinean hands.

It was in 1831 when forty men – led by Luis Vernet, the first Argentinean commander in Las Malvinas – settled here. Along with him came his wife, María who gave birth a girl who was christened Malvinas. The Argentinean settlement in this merciless land didn’t last long though.

In 1833 the British colonial power invaded Las Mavinas, and what happen afterwards is now called “ethnic cleansing” – hundreds of English settlers were artificially introduced while all Argentineans were expelled.

http://theconversation.com/las-malvinas-or-falkland-islands-british-or-argentinean-6106


And why does anyone care? Imperialists care because they are searching for OIL (#big surprise, #business as usual, #imperialism marches on):

Argentina has threatened 15-year jail terms and fines of more than $1.5bn for Falklands oil explorers, in the latest escalation of rhetoric over the disputed islands.

The South American nation has repeatedly threatened to take legal action against companies such as Rockhopper Exploration, Falkland Oil and Gas Limited, and Premier Oil, which are all exploring or planning to produce oil off the Falklands.

The Argentine Congress “passed a law establishing criminal sanctions to be imposed on companies and individuals involved in the illegal exploration and exploitation of hydrocarbons in the Argentine continental shelf,” the Argentine Embassy said in a statement yesterday.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/10482181/Argentina-vows-to-jail-Falklands-oil-explorers.html

[MADem]

95. Sorry, that's terribly, terribly weak, too. Nice effort, but no sale.

Those "Argentinian hands" came straight outta Madrid and elsewhere. By the time 1833 rolled round, we were down to two sets of "occupiers," and one set won--and they've been there for nearly two hundred years.

The thing that is now "Argentina" is a product of .... gasp!! European colonialism.

You might want to educate YOURSELF, and not play a pot-kettle game. If you want to play a "Who was there FIRST?" game, the Dutch and French, for starters, are well ahead of your team.

You might also read the critical responses to your links before you slap them up as some sort of "proof" of your assertions, because they mock--rather roundly and successfully--the crazed and rather academically lazy assertions that your source made. Sample:

He summarises the case for the islands being legitimately Argentinian based on the Argentinian settlement of 1831. However, first occupation of the islands is unclear and disputed. It is recorded that a Dutchman named Sebald discovered the islands in 1600 after which the Dutch, French, British and Spanish took various turns occupying or using the islands depending on who was winning successive European wars. The French actually had a manned settlement there in 1764. If Argentina claims prior ownership then it was not in the status of a Nation as Argentina did not gain independence until 1816. Statements about Britain being a Colonial power will ring hollow to Patagonians with their own subjugation to Argentina in the 1860s.

There is little acknowledgment of the existing occupants in the article, nor what their wishes might be, nor their rights to self-determination. Indeed the UN places considerable credence in these disputes on the wishes of the existing occupants. Using a phrase like ‘Ethnic Cleansing’ might add drama to the article but it diminishes real ethnic cleansing that we see in places like Rwanda and Bosnia. The recovery of the islands by the British in 1833 saw the removal of the Argentinians back to Argentina. Is the author really comparing this to the ethnic cleansing of Rwanda?

Castillo makes general accusations about the aggressive military posture of the British however Britain have been caught on the hop before, in 1982 and are rightfully alert to the emotional rhetoric of Argentinian politicians. By the way the massive UK forces on the Island includes an Infantry Rifle Company of 150 men, a light Squadron of air defence aircraft and a guard ship, usually a Frigate and assorted are other supporting troops there providing air-defence, logistics and Engineer support. They are still clearing mines laid by the Argentinians in 1982. The tour of duty of Prince William is a normal three-month tour as a search and rescue pilot. If Argentina sees this as a major military escalation then they have serious problems way beyond the Falkland Islands.

It is also disappointing that the author relies on Diplomatic statements by the Ecuadorean President via Twitter as strengthening his argument.

[TBF]

106. What I'm hearing from you is a lot of assertions

with no actual cites at all (comments to my cites that also do not have any sourcing are of the same dubious nature).

[MADem]

108. If you don't believe the comments from your OWN citation, you've got Google.

Go on, look up the assertions made in the discussion you posted, and prove me wrong.

That's a terribly weak come-back, and you know it.

But hey, I'll bite--here's a source that covers the full history of the place, with citations a-plenty that you can check yourself. You might not like the source, though, because it starts out as follows:

While Amerindians from Patagonia could have visited the Falklands,[1] [2] the islands were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.

[dlwickham]

52. the Argentine government at the time was a military dictatorship

responsible for the deaths and disappearances of thousands of their own citizens

[Nye Bevan]

58. And the Falklands invasion was to whip up patriotic fervor

and distract attention from their own (the ruling military junta's) failings.

[joshcryer]

68. Yep.

[Junkdrawer]

5. That'll learn em....

Object Lesson delivered...I guess.

[GreatCaesarsGhost]

7. Granada was nothing more than a media diversion.

The medical students in Granada didn't even know they needed rescuing.

[malaise]

9. 100% correct

They were enjoying Grand Anse beach way too much.
But the media and everyone else were not talking about the dead marines.

[arcane1]

13. Just like Jessica Lynch n/t

[lpbk2713]

8. I thought Clint Eastwood did that.

Never mind

[malaise]

10. Bwaaaaaaaaaaaaah hahahha

[Benton D Struckcheon]

12. I remember that very well.

If any Dem Prez had ever let 200 Marines die for no reason at all we'd never hear the end of it. (I still vividly recall one Marine digging a trench over there who said bitterly into the camera "This is our counterattack." I always wondered if he survived.)
Reagan, well, him they fawn over. Truly disgusting.

[malaise]

14. Four dead Americans in a conflict zone in Libya and it's

Benghazi, Benghazi, Benghazi
but 200 dead marines under Reagan and it's bomb Grenada and move along.
That one blows brains.

[Thinkingabout]

18. K & R

4000 killed in a trumped up invasion of Iraq not counting those whom they were able to get out before they passed away. I am not trying to downplay Benghazi but by the way Issa and Graham talks about Benghazi either Hillary or Obama fired the shots.

[malaise]

74. You are 100% correct

They and the corporate media give themselves a pass - and it's not as if genuine US embassies (as opposed to a Consulate) weren't attacked under Bushco.

[barbtries]

15. i was giving birth

on October 25, 1983 - and i put it in his baby book.

[malaise]

23. Damn!!

That shook me up big time. We had lots of friends in Grenada at the time.

[socialist_n_TN]

16. Did more than bomb didn't he? I thought he invaded the island too...

Either way, it WAS an obvious distraction.

[former9thward]

28. The island was invaded not bombed.

Naval vessels fired a few shells in support but there was no bombing by any aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

[malaise]

43. Yes they ran the place until December of that year

while setting up the puppets

[The Magistrate]

17. It Was Pretty Obvous Distraction, Ma'am

A 'boss kicks you, you go home and kick the cat' sort of thing....

Fact is Reagan had his ass handed to him in Lebanon.

[malaise]

21. Lawrence Wilkerson just reminded us of the bombing of

Panama in 89 - they simply said Monroe Doctrine. He added that Russia had its doctrines as do all great powers.

The neo-cons are crazy.

[The Magistrate]

24. Indeed, Ma'am

I have never considered 'Eastward Ho!' a good policy for NATO.

However, I have a great deal of sympathy for people whose parents and grandparents lived under Soviet domination who want no part of that today or in the future for themselves and their children.

[malaise]

26. Sir I have sympathy for most people on the planet who are

pawns in this non-stop quest for resources. I wish all domination would end but that won't happen in my lifetime or yours.

[CBGLuthier]

19. I remember they gave everyone a medal and Clint Eastwood made a movie that made it look important

instead of just an obvious ploy to distract us from Reagan's Lebanon blunder.

[Sarah Ibarruri]

20. Another American coup. The U.S. is in the business of overthrowing govts. nt

[flamingdem]

22. Yanks Pound Kamikaze Cubans

I remember reading that New York Post headline in the 80s

[malaise]

25. We need only recall all the lies during the 1980s

Reagan and Thatcher were New World Order on steroids but sadly for them it was not the end of history.

[flamingdem]

34. gawd reagan, the youngsters on DU have

no idea.. aaaarg.. the me generation and downhill since

[KauaiK]

27. I remember!!

I honestly think that Reagan thought the Presidency was a B movie in was filming. Unfortunately it involved real countries and affected real people.

Does anyone remember him testing a microphone, with "Testing, testing, 1, 2, 3 - the bombing will begin in ....."

[JHB]

29. Actually, lots of people assumed there was a link...

...but the Grenada invasion (a bit more than bombing) was in motion well before the Beirut attack.

[WinkyDink]

33. Or a bit LESS.

[JHB]

35. Troops were sent in and engaged in fighting with Cuban military engineers

I count that as more than "bombing".

[nadinbrzezinski]

100. Four Seals were lost engaging Cuban Special Forces

I count that as a bit more

[WinkyDink]

30. No bombing involved. Plus, you assume that Reagan cared that much about the 241 Marines.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Grenada

[avebury]

31. I mentioned Grenada in another thread.

That was the first thing I thought of when I saw people try to start up the drum beat against Russia.

[malaise]

44. Selective memory

or maybe people just didn't know about it.

[avebury]

73. They also tend to forget that we helped to

overthrow Allende in Chile, Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq in Iran, and who knows how many democratically elected leaders. The US has done more then its fair share of meddling in the affairs of other countries around the world.

[malaise]

75. Manley in Jamaica

Jagan in Guyana - shall I go on?

[avebury]

76. Apparently interference in the governments of

other countries is only acceptable when it is the US doing the interfering.

[uncommonlink]

32. Operation Urgent Fury was already in the planning stages when the Beirut bombing

happened. We were already on Barbados awaiting the go order.
The bombing of the Marine Barracks in Beirut had nothing to do with Grenada.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. ++++1 brazillion

[uncommonlink]

37. Thank you.

When I say we, I mean me specifically as part of the invasion force.

[nadinbrzezinski]

40. I know, hubby was on his way in a sub

Those things don't move themselves.

[okaawhatever]

112. My Dad was there. He was a 130 pilot. What branch of service were you? If you don't mind

answering.

[uncommonlink]

113. Army.

1/75th Rangers. Quite likely I jumped from your dad's Herc.

[JHB]

38. From a recent Mother Jones article on the Greneda invasion

Shorter Reagan: the government of Grenada was in chaos; Americans were in danger; and nearby governments requested our help. So we sent in troops. Does this sound at all familiar?

As it happens, there was little evidence that any Americans were in danger, and the nearby governments had asked for help largely because Reagan had requested it. The real reason for the invasion was that Grenada was a nearby country and Reagan was concerned that Cuba and the Soviet Union were establishing a military foothold there. Does it start to sound familiar now?

You may decide for yourself whether the invasion of Grenada was justified. The Cuban military presence was real, after all. And there's certainly no question about the instability of the Grenadian government.

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2014/03/flashback-why-ronald-reagan-invaded-grenada

[uncommonlink]

39. We not only engaged in combat with Cuban Military Engineers,

but also a contingent of Cuban Special Forces.

[malaise]

48. The Cubans have been harmless in this region

They were building an international airport. They supplied doctors, nurses and so on - right across this region.

Bishop had been murdered but the West wanted him dead anyway.

[JHB]

54. And would the Reaganauts see it that way?

No, they saw The Red Menace(tm) at work.

My point being, this was not something they threw together to distract attention from Beirut. It was already in motion.

[seaglass]

82. I was there a month or so before it happened - a stopover on a cruise and friends of mine on the

same cruise at a later date were kept at sea when they were supposed to go to Grenada because of the invasion.

As I remember it, Grenada had asked US for funds to expand the airport for larger aircraft to increase tourism and US declined but the Cubans agreed to fund. Lots of Americans in a wealthy area had moved out and Cubans had moved in.

We went to a beach after touring a rum-making operation and I remember there being some young kids (16-17 yo) with machine guns patrolling the area. (I don't know anything about guns except they difference between a pistol and a bigger gun).

This is from memory and may not be 100% accurate.

[Fozzledick]

46. Reagan was planning to invade Cuba but he chickened out.

He had been gathering and training a task force for two years to invade Cuba with, but after he got his fingers burnt in Beirut he realized that military operations weren't the easy theatrical production he thought they were, so he got cold feet and dumped the task force on the nearest defenseless island with a government he didn't like.

He also gave up his original plan to invade Nicaragua with US troops as too risky and tried to overthrow their government with a hired army of mercenary terrorists instead.

[Nye Bevan]

49. And JFK actually did invade Cuba (nt)

[Fozzledick]

53. If you mean the Bay of Pigs that was really Nixon's operation

But the generals lied to JFK and told him that Eisenhower had approved it and it was too far gone to cancel. JFK stuck his neck out to refuse to allow US forces to join in and the generals never forgave him for it.......

[malokvale77]

50. Yes, clearly...

They were such a threat to us. LOL LOL LOL

Ever since the assassination of JFK this country has become a joke to the idea of democracy.

The big bad "USA". Funny that.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

64. At that time, Minnesota Public Radio broadcast the Canadian news program As It Happens

The contrast between the news coverage on All Things Considered and the news coverage on As It Happens was striking and was the first nail in the coffin of my trust in the U.S. media.

All Things Considered was reporting only what official U.S. military sources were willing to reveal and saying that they had "no way" of getting further information.

In contrast, the As It Happens staff were aware that the U.S., Canada, and the Caribbean are on the same phone system, so they just picked up the phone and CALLED people in Grenada. They talked to the British consul and the head of the medical school.

The head of the medical school said that the students were in no danger and that the leaders of the coup had phoned him and told him that they wanted the school to stay. The leaders gave him a number to call if any rogue rebels got the idea of harming the school or the students.

A couple of days later, we saw the news reports of the "rescued" students stepping off the plane and kissing the ground. How much do you want to bet they were coached?

When the invasion was covered in Newsweek, the photo gallery showed graffiti saying, "Thank you, President Reagan" and "God bless America."

About two years later, I was in Oregon and went to hear a talk by a sociologist who had done research in Grenada over the years. He told about the adverse effects of the invasion on the local people. For example, the leftist government had established youth centers. They were now closed, accused of being "centers for Communist propaganda." The government had also established cooperatives so that people could create value-added products from local agricultural products so that an island whose major exports were citrus fruits and nutmeg wouldn't have to import orange and grapefruit juice, orange marmalade, and ground nutmeg. The Americans disbanded the cooperatives. American hotel chains were buying up beachfront property and preventing local people from using the beaches.

Someone asked about the "Thank you, President Reagan" graffiti. Weren't the people of Grenada grateful to the U.S.?

The speaker laughed and said that he had asked his Grenada friends about the graffiti all over the island, and no one knew where it had come from. Finally, he found a man who said that he had gotten up in the middle of the night to pee, had looked out the window, and had seen an SUV pull up in front of the wall across the street. A bunch of white men had jumped out and spray painted the slogans.

Six years after that, the U.S. invaded Panama. Again the magazine spreads showed graffiti that said "Thank you, President Bush" and "God bless America."

Back to Grenada--After the news of the invasion broke, I went to the coffee shop of the college where I was teaching. The only other faculty member was a professor of American history, one of the most highly respected instructors at the college. I sat down at his table and said, "Today I'm ashamed to be an American."

He sighed and said, "I am, too, and I hate feeling like this."

[malaise]

71. To this day Canada still has excellent news programs

no wonder they won't let Fox spew their rubbish in Canada.

[Nye Bevan]

81. Snopes says you are wrong.

http://www.snopes.com/politics/business/foxcanada.asp

[burfman]

65. thanks for the reminder

Wow - I do remember both the barracks bombing and the Grenada invasion - but did not remember them as being so close in time.

[mucifer]

69. I was a liberal nursing student at UW Madison about 2 years after the invasion

I actually got a leaflet from the Grenada medical school asking me to apply.

I thought it was bizarre and kind of funny. It had a big picture of ronald reagan on it.

[TBF]

78. Very cool -

we must've been on campus at around the same time (I was there mid to late 80s). Nice to see another Badger on here!

[mucifer]

85. Nice to meet you TBF!

[Democracyinkind]

79. But we had to contain those cuban construction workers.. What if we hadn't?

They would be constructing things on the mainland US by now!!!

[uncommonlink]

93. Those cuban construction workers?

They were Cuban Military Engineers, and as soon as we landed, we came under fire from them, along with a contingent of Cuban Special Forces, we took causuaties from those so called construction workers.

[Democracyinkind]

94. I actually was aware of that ;)

I was joining in in the general snark of the thread.

But I do think it important that they opened fire a full day after hostilities had already begun - many short accounts of Operation Urgent Fury begin with that episode as if it was the opening of hostilities.

Additionally, I do not think we had any business invading Grenada in the first place. Also, I don't think that there was any legitimate threat to US interests by the presence of the Cubans, or by any events on Grenada. Further I do not find the Cubans' reaction all that unreasonable or unforeseeable. It was an invasion, during the Cold War, after all. I am aware that some people still disagree with this view (as you obviously do).

[uncommonlink]

96. I do know that I took a round from one of those cubans as I landed.

Just a grazing round.
I agree that we had no business invading Grenada, that airport and the american students were in no danger, this was basically Reagan's test of the revamped military.

Know what kind of maps we were issued? Fucking tourist maps, can you believe that? Tourist maps!

I lost some good friends because Reagan had to prove what a big dick he had.

OP claiming that Grenada was a distraction because of Beirut is plain false, we were already in Barbados awaiting the go order when word came about the bombing.

[Democracyinkind]

97. I'm glad to hear that you weren't seriously hurt.

That anyone had to die for that is a shame. Our soldiers deserve better. Much better.

[uncommonlink]

98. I agree.

And I include, as do you, Cubans, Grenadians, and civilians.

It was a useless loss of life.

[Democracyinkind]

99. Welcome to DU, by the way. I think you add an interesting, if sometimes challenging, perspective. nt

[uncommonlink]

101. Thank you for the welcome.

I try to be challenging, but respectful of others viewpoints also.
I've read your links in another thread about Estonia and found the fascinating and very informative.
I look forward to reading more of your info, keep up the good work.

[LiberalAndProud]

103. Welcome to DU.

I'm glad you decided to post in this thread. I've been reading this and remembering the time. It's good to see a first hand account.

[uncommonlink]

105. Thank you for the welcome.

I remember because I lost some good Rangers and friends in the fight for no good reason.

[Shankapotomus]

80. I remember him invading it

I don't know about bombing.

[Berlum]

87. "Smirk" - Ronald 'Chickenhawk' Reagan (R)

[Codeine]

91. I was all of 13 at the time, and even then I knew it was bullshit.

I remember people getting all excited at how bad-ass we were. Seriously? It was the equivalent of punching a four year old in the mouth and then claiming we deserved a WBC title.

[upaloopa]

102. What's the link?

I don't like Reagan but I don't like innuendo either.
Yes I was alive and remember and I remember going after Noriega too. I never e really knew a good reason for either one but I didn't feel the need to invent one either.

[theboss]

104. In retrospect, the Reagan Administration was actually really restrained militarily

At least in terms of boots on the ground and live ordinance fired.

Marines in Lebanon
Invasion of Grenada
Two air raids in Lybia
I believe we placed troops in Honduras and Panama too

Spending, sabre rattling, illegal funding of wars....that was more their thing.

[KamaAina]

107. I do indeed.

I remember some reaction from Europe at the time. "They built an airstrip? What would have been next? A Marriott?"

[louis-t]

109. Yeah, but he was a 'man's man'

[ManiacJoe]

110. I remember the invasion but not any bombing runs in Genada.

I attribute that mostly to my bad memory.