Hello folks
Although I was alive during the Falklands conflict in the 80s, I was too young to really register what happened. To this day, it seems difficult to comprehend how a country like Argentina could look at a group of islands belonging to another country and say "Hey, why not try invading those? There's not much else to do round here..." - sadly forgetting in the process that the military might of the sovereign nation sworn to defend those islands significantly surpassed anything that the Argentinians could muster.
Not surprisingly, the happless Argentinians got their asses kicked all the way back from whence they came. One would think they would "pipe down" as we say in England, and notch it down to experience and a few too many drinks.
But no, far from it. Now I hear the Argentinians are making noises again, and have backed up their words with a blockade of the "disputed" islands. They're also getting all flustered by Prince William's deployment to the Falklands, even though he'll just be flying around in a search and rescue helicopter (hardly a potent military threat).
Obviously, I'm biased in all of this because I'm British, but I would genuinely be fascinated to hear from any English-speaking Argentinians as to why this sort of behaviour is called for. After all, the islanders themselves want to remain British, so what's the problem?
Yes, I know the Falklands are geographically closer to Argentina than to, say, Cornwall - but surely that alone isn't a reason for invasion? By the same logic, Canada would invade Greenland, taking it from Denmark, and the Channel Islands would be swiped by the French.
Am I missing something?
Cedars