The comparisons between the Falklands War & Gulf War?

Answer 1

Which Gulf War? There were three (1981-1988, 1990-1991 and 2003).

If you mean the current engagement in Iraq, they are chalk and cheese

In the Falklands War the UK did not require UN backing, as the international community recognised Britain's claim on the Malvinas. In the end only Peru supported Argentina.

Waging war in Iraq was much simpler with lines of communication much closer to Britain - or to dry land at the very least. Imagine trying to logistically support all the naval, air force and Marine assets that went down to the sub-Antarctic region of the world.

But keeping the peace is much harder in Iraq. In the Falklands War the Falklanders identified themselves as British and did not ally themselves with the invaders. The Iraqis clearly have a different opinion, even if they want a coalition presence just to keep foreign militants out.

Besides 2,000 Falklanders are less troublesome than 20 million Iraqis, with their own ethnic and religious animosities.

Answer 2

On the surface The Gulf war boiled down to the issue of OIL & its control!
While The Falklands War boiled down to British Sovereignty and an agreement that was signed back in the 1700's between two countries.
But if you then go into it in depth then both situations are virtually the same as in both cases two countries were illegally invaded by an outside country, and the invaded peoples of each country had to be protected.
Also even though I stated that the Gulf war was over Oil. It is also know that there are oil fields that as yet have not been unexplored in and around the Falklands Islands, but at the time of the invasion this was not known.

Answer 3

Can't see any comparisons.
There was some justification for the Falklands War since the Argentinians invaded and the Falklands still belong to the UK.
Iraq belongs to Iraq and hasn't invaded anyone since 1990.
The USA didn't back the UK in the Falklands war, in fact Ronald Reagan said the war was like two bald men fighting over a comb.
The UK have consistently backed the USA in all their dubious adventures.
In spite of rumours at the time, no oil has yet been found on or around the Falkland Islands, (not that the general public have been told about).
There's still a lot of oil in Iraq.

Religious conflict during the Falklands war was kept to a minimum, since both Argentina and the UK profess to be Christians.
In Iraq religion raises its ugly head because Iraqis are principally Muslims and the UK and USA say they are Christians.

Comparisons? Hardly!

Answer 4

The Gulf war was to stop a dictatorship which was backing the killing of people all over the world.

the Falklands war was just to keep two worthless dictators in power. After all the Falklands is worthless lumps of rock 000's of miles away with the population of a small village. Yet we now pay 3 billion a year to garrison it. That's enough to run several small hospitals

Answer 5

The country was being governed by someone who knew what she was doing hence we won that war. The Gulf War was started for no other reason than either of the Bushes wanted control of the oil. If the first Bush had finished the Gulf War and let Stormin Norman in to finish off Sadam we wouldn't be in this mess.

Answer 6

We won in the Falklands, the Argies were conscripts did'nt want to be there. They were fed a lie by the military government, a bit like us in the current Gulf conflict. In the gulf you are not fighting a convention foe,there are different factions all taking a pot shot at us,

Young men die for old mem's dreams

Answer 7

Point of clarification. Ronnie Raygun backed the "Iron Lady". He refused to invoke the "Munroe Doctrine" when Argentina requested him to do so. Also without US backing the "OAS" proved to be quite useless.