I’m not British, reydelcastillo…
My mistake
I don’t totally agree. From the Argentine perspective, it was perhaps thought the British would be very hard pressed to assemble the task force they did. Were the British servicemen better trained all-volunteers, provided more advanced technology, and have a more modern tradition combined with actual experience in foreign conflicts against intractable enemies - yes. There is a big difference in the “projection of power” where one has to send forces far from their bases and strain the logistical supply chain. I imagine that the Argentines thought the Brits would negotiate, and if it did come to conflict, that they could inflict enough casualties and damage that the British would withdraw as the Falklands weren’t exactly the center of commerce and if the cost were too great than they would abandon them is some face-saving sort of way as they did parts of Africa, Asia, and the Middle East. I doubt any but the most delusionally optimistic of the Argentine commanders believed they could face down the British in a straight-up infantry fight. But I doubt they expected the RN fleet air arm to so effectively provide a screen against their Air Force. Most probably thought it a multidimensional battle where the Argentine forces simply had to survive on the Falklands while inflicting enough casualties on both land and sea to force a stalemate, and hence, a victory of sorts.
Of course it was an unexpected move from the Britons to actually fight and kill for a worthless little island off the Argentinian coast, but I wouldn’t be surprised if Thatcher had considered it a very personal conflict.
The British Empire had collapsed all over the place over the last half century, and she wouldn’t allow “some Dictator in South America” to further humiliate the UK…
There’s been another nation that failed not only once, but twice because the Brits reacted to the invasion of a seemingly unimportant nation/region…
You could say they have a track record for being ‘easily irritable’. :mrgreen:
There was certainly the perception that the British regarded this as an opportunity to reestablish themselves in the international realm. But I doubt more than a few had any illusions regarding colonial resurgence. And there was something about a hostile takeover of her citizens by a less than democratic minded gov’t of pricks that threw their kids out over the ocean from C-130s…
I’m not saying the wanted to restart their colonial times, I’m just saying they wouldn’t want to let a Southern American dictatorship just take away ‘British Land’ by force and not respond to it.
And the fact that they lost one former colony after the other probably let the British government to react that strongly. They wanted to send a message that even though the British Colonial Empire might be in shatters, they are still a power to be reckoned with.
It had nothing to do with colonial times or past glories or fading dreams of Empire. By 1982 the British Empire had effectively gone, in the vast majority of cases the British granted independence avoiding wars of independence, with most former colonies retaining a relation to the UK through the British Commonwealth.
On the Argentine part it was largely a miscalculation, with the Junta assuming the British wouldn’t fight as it dismissed democracies as weak. Nor was it about sending a message; the British entered negotiations to avoid a military confrontation but if you follow the progress of those negotiations the British offered concessions whilst the Argentine Government dillied; they agreed a formula then at the last minute withdrew on several occasions. Having taken the Falklands, they found themselves in the position that they couldn’t back down or make concessions.
Nickdfresh nailed it when he said “And there was something about a hostile takeover of her citizens by a less than democratic minded gov’t of pricks that threw their kids out over the ocean from C-130s…” Its often said that democracies find it difficult to go to war over a principle, in fact that is pretty much about the only thing they do go to war for. Additional factors were that the British were involved in territorial disputes elsewhere, like Guatemala eyeing Belize. To do nothing would have invited further similar actions elsewhere.
Signals of War by Virginia Gamba-Stonehouse and Sir Lawrence Freedman has a fairly rigorous analysis of the lead up to the conflict; though I have to say you can recognise the bits she wrote.
You say the Falklands war had nothing to do with sending a message, but later you admit that if they had allowed the Argentinians to do what they want with the Falklands would have suggested that others could do the same thing with territories they eyed.
You totally contradict yourself by first claiming it wasn’t about sending a message, and then arguing that it was meant as a message.
To an extent. But it was not “land” but people that counted. The point I am trying to make an failing to articulate is that the Falklands were not islands that were inhabited by anything other than people that regarded themselves as citizens of the UK. It’s up to the local populace to decide which country they want to be in as their state. Therefore, it was in fact a conflict that was post-Empire, and a provocation to any state no less inflammatory than if the French decided that they wanted to control the Isle of Wight since it might have been a Norman settlement at one time. A bogus argument that regards symbols as more important than the self-determination of human beings. It was the Argentines that were reflecting the very essence of colonialism here…
That has never worked. Ask the Texans 
Okay, I think they have elections (even there :D). Maybe we can attach a proposition to the ballot?
BTW, what are you exactly referring too?
The American Civil War, Yank
Oh, well, I was thinking of the here and now. Not the past.
In any case, that’s not even close to an analogy…
More like I think you should live in the 51st state, Canadian.
Canada is too big for a single state, that’s why we haven’t accepted yet.
And I always thought that either Israel or Britain were the 51st state? 
No I don’t contradict myself, I said it was “an additional factor”, thereby implying it was not the main consideration. But whatever, ignore what you don’t like if it makes you feel better.
Sorry that from a neutral Outsider’s perspective I am not capable of guessing the motivation as well as you, a citizen of the warring nation whose government had to justify their war. :oops:
/sarcasm
Sarcasm being the lowest form of wit?
Touché. But appropriate in this situation.
On the contrary, sarcasm carries poorly on the Internet and usually generates nothing but heat and light. If you disagree with me fine, I happen to think you’re wrong. And judging from your response, I would suggest you’re not neutral.
i think he’s being sincere besides why are you getting mad over this its just a forum its not life threatening is it?
Who said I was mad about it?
Attitudes are another thing that carries very badly over text. I hoped you wouldn’t let that get to you, but I was really starting to wonder if you took it personal.