• ZMoney@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    19 天前

    It’s only legitimate out of context. The two countries were trying to negotiate a transfer before the war broke out. Argentina was ruled by a military Junta and used the invasion to bolster its internal politics. Thatcher did the same thing by using overwhelming force over a territory that Britain was trying to get rid of. An Argentine cruiser was sunk outside of the exclusion zone.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sinking_of_ARA_General_Belgrano

    Afterwards Britain fortified the island to feed its military industrial complex and drum up more support for its decaying empire. Everything about this war was totally pointless except from a domestic political standpoint.

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/apr/07/british-sovereignty-falklands-absurd-imperial-hangover-argentina

    • bigpEE@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      19 天前

      It’s legitimate in context. I’m not addressing all your points, but the exclusion zone was never “this is the only place we’ll be fighting”

    • stark@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      19 天前

      So what should have been the right move then when Argentina invaded the islands? Should Thatcher just have abandoned the people on the Falklands and let them fend for themselves?

      • ZMoney@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        19 天前

        No, those 907 people absolutely had to die so that Britain could keep its frozen rock halfway around the world.

        • stark@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          19 天前

          I doubt the regime that threw dissidents out of helicopters would have just let the British Falklanders live peacefully among the Argentines.