Ignorance?

[sergio]

In modern times, people have a habit of getting over wars, particularly stupid ones. By the late 60's, JFK was getting a hero's welcome in Berlin, same for the Japanese and the US; by the 1990's the US and Vietnam had resumed full relations; etc. But not here, because of course not.

The Falklands War was about the stupidest a war could get. Britain was shedding colonies and territories by the dozen, the Falklanders did not have full British citizenship, and it was widely seen as a matter of time before the Falklands passed to Argentine control.

The war was started by a failing government, now widely reviled, in an attempt to shore up domestic support. They managed to fail even at this, even with the UK on the other side of the world and the US regarding a British victory as "militarily impossible". They literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is highly ironic that the people who protest the most against that government, and never tire of tarring their purported successors with the "genocidal" and "Nazi" brush, seem to regard this absurd war as the one good thing they did. For the same reason, by the way: trying to score cheap political points, devoid of any substance.

No sentiment that the Falklands conflict was a ridiculous idea, poorly executed, which pretty much put the brakes on the Falkland being Argentine for at least a generation.

It would be more than difficult for the islands to be ceded to Argentina when the islanders quite definitely want to remain under British rule. And after a war was fought it just isn't going to happen.

 

[ben]

It would be more than difficult for the islands to be ceded to Argentina when the islanders quite definitely want to remain under British rule. And after a war was fought it just isn't going to happen.

Of course it isn’t going to happen. Whereas in the 80’s, absent the war, it was more likely to happen than not.

Knowing this, the milicos opted for a war, primarily out of domestic political considerations. Which blew up spectacularly.

Why subsequent governments did not opt to give up the cause and blame it on the genocidal etc etc govt, preferring to harbor and nurture a completely unproductive grudge towards the English, is beyond me.

India I can get, they have every right to a grudge. But Argentina?

 

[sergio]

Of course it isn’t going to happen. Whereas in the 80’s, absent the war, it was more likely to happen than not.

Knowing this, the milicos opted for a war, primarily out of domestic political considerations. Which blew up spectacularly.

Why subsequent governments did not opt to give up the cause and blame it on the genocidal etc etc govt, preferring to harbor and nurture a completely unproductive grudge towards the English, is beyond me.

India I can get, they have every right to a grudge. But Argentina?

They like playing the victim.

 

[Ries]

The other 20 countries didn’t have a recent war with Scotland ...

The war was about 35 years ago- not what I would call "recent".
And, currently, over 50% of the population of Argentina was born since that war.
That means more than half of all Argentines dont remember the war, because they were not alive when it happened.

 

[TheDonald]

Argentines are sore losers. Five or so delinquent hinchas hurl rocks, bricks and bottles at an opposing soccer team's bus. The game gets postponed and then moved to Madrid. Economists estimate the foregone positive economic benefit to the city of Buenos Aires at $40 million. Argentines complain. They say it is unfair. They shout "conspiracy."

Meanwhile, despite numerous cell phone camera recordings of the vandalism, not one of the perpetrators is held accountable.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

In modern times, people have a habit of getting over wars, particularly stupid ones. By the late 60's, JFK was getting a hero's welcome in Berlin, same for the Japanese and the US; by the 1990's the US and Vietnam had resumed full relations; etc. But not here, because of course not.

The Falklands War was about the stupidest a war could get. Britain was shedding colonies and territories by the dozen, the Falklanders did not have full British citizenship, and it was widely seen as a matter of time before the Falklands passed to Argentine control.

The war was started by a failing government, now widely reviled, in an attempt to shore up domestic support. They managed to fail even at this, even with the UK on the other side of the world and the US regarding a British victory as "militarily impossible". They literally snatched defeat from the jaws of victory.

It is highly ironic that the people who protest the most against that government, and never tire of tarring their purported successors with the "genocidal" and "Nazi" brush, seem to regard this absurd war as the one good thing they did. For the same reason, by the way: trying to score cheap political points, devoid of any substance.

No sentiment that the Falklands conflict was a ridiculous idea, poorly executed, which pretty much put the brakes on the Falkland being Argentine for at least a generation.

It was the only good thing they did because at the Coups the brutal (and ignorant, disable to rule) force was the army, the corrupts were the navy (the Pro was founded by Macry and two almirals) and the brain (and nazis) was always the air force and the reason democracy prevailed for 25 years is because they killed some many pilots and this big disaster allowed the weak democracy to judge them, something unique because at Nuremberg it was a foreign power who judged the nazis, not germans.

Nobody forget the dictatots that defeat because we have a long history of military success, including including defeating the united kingdom twice and defeating the Spaing Kingdom when they were a super power abd sent here their elite troops veterans of the war against Napoleón.

 

[ben]

Even accounting for the poor nonstandard English, the above post is incomprehensible.

"defeating the united kingdom twice" - what?

"and defeating the Spaing [sic] Kingdom when they were a super power abd sent here their elite troops veterans of the war against Napoleón" -

1) Comparisons of wars 170 years apart don't make a whole lot of sense.
2) Comparing a war of independence, where you are fighting for your own territory and can count on support from your own people, to a war of aggression makes even less sense. The US won their war of independence, only to be trounced by Great Britain some 40 years later when they made a play for Canada.

Combined, the comparison is ridiculous. But hey, you do you.

 

[Bajo_cero2]

Even accounting for the poor nonstandard English, the above post is incomprehensible.

"defeating the united kingdom twice" - what?

"and defeating the Spaing [sic] Kingdom when they were a super power abd sent here their elite troops veterans of the war against Napoleón" -

1) Comparisons of wars 170 years apart don't make a whole lot of sense.
2) Comparing a war of independence, where you are fighting for your own territory and can count on support from your own people, to a war of aggression makes even less sense. The US won their war of independence, only to be trounced by Great Britain some 40 years later when they made a play for Canada.

Combined, the comparison is ridiculous. But hey, you do you.

You are so ignorant. The best you can do is to critize my English because you are empty of knoledge and ideas, right?

There is no comparision, i just explained why argentines do not forgive those fkg incompetent and improvised navy that invaded the islands without consulting the other two forces. There brave conscripts fought not the elite of the army:
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oscar_Ismael_Poltronieri

By the way, do you know that the Pro was foundes by to navy and Macri, right? We are seing the same imcompetence nowadays.

FYI Buenos Aires was conquered once and the defence succeded to the second invasion. So, the English were defeated twice by popular counter attacks. Many of them were killed by house wives who dropped them boiling oil from the roof by house. Seems that hose wives were too hard for them.It is shameful, I know. it must be why they do not teach it in the schools of the united kingdom. This is is why, also,the aircraft carrier that was sunk in the war that the united kingdom does not want to admit was sunk.
The streets of San Telmo was red with their blood. Now you know.
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasiones_Inglesas

Regarding Spain, they sent its elite veteran troops and they were defeated in Argentina, Chile and Peru. WTF are you talking about? Bullshit as always.
Do you know the story of the Burgos regiment? Of course not. 18 battles fought, 18 battles won they sang at Maipu. There were not 19th and there were no survivors neither. This is what happends when you empower former slaves and gauchos that were almost the same to Spaniards.
https://es.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batalla_de_Maipú

However, you are just a fkg idiot as usual. Do I have to teach you everything?

 

[ben]

Man, whatever you take, double the dosage...

I don't even know where to start. Smarting from criticism that comparing wars 170 years apart makes little sense, and that comparing wars of aggression to independence rebellions makes even less sense, you proceed to invoke the British invasion of the River Plate.

Let's count the ways in which invoking this, in this context, is stupid:

• Need I remind you that the UK was fighting with Spanish forces, not Argentina?
• Need I remind you that the British were fighting in several other theaters at the same time, and this region - which they had never really controlled - was a comparatively low priority?
• "Many of them were killed by house wives who dropped them boiling oil from the roof by house" -
  • Is that not exactly what I'd said - "where you are fighting for your own territory and can count on support from your own people" - to the letter? (See following paragraph regarding Spain).
  • Do you even remember the point you're arguing?
  • Do you even have a point?
• Regarding Spain, whatever troops they sent, they were defeated by an army fighting on its own turf, which is how and why the vast majority of independence wars of that era were successful, be it the United States or most of South America.
  I am sure I have a lot to learn about the particulars of the Argentine one - only you know everything, after all. But the general point is clear regardless, as you yourself made clear in the preceding paragraph.
• Finally, I am not making fun of your English, to the contrary I was trying to give you a pass for that. Unfortunately the quality of your logic would require that be a large pass indeed.

you are just a fkg idiot

You happen to be right about that, but that was just a lucky guess.

 

[SebastianCaballito]

I think if you feel most people here are aggressive, you will attract "aggressive"... better to think of it as a few isolated incidents and grow a little thicker skin. Life is short, just laugh it off and move on .... just my two cents