The victims of this conflict are the casualties of a completely pointless war, on either side. Neither side fought for legitimate reasons and both used it to drum up nationalism.

[–] stark@sopuli.xyz 12 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

How is defending against an invasion not legitimate?

[–] ZMoney@lemmy.world -2 points 3 hours ago (2 children)

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

[–] stark@sopuli.xyz 1 points 59 minutes ago* (last edited 43 minutes ago)

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?

[–] bigpEE@lemmy.world 1 points 2 hours ago

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"