2007-06-15 01:01:02 · 9 answers · asked by Karl D 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Military
I think for internal political reasons Argentina decided to roll the dice. By invading and occupying the Falkland Islands again they hoped to spur some Argentinian patriotism to distract people from some internal problems. They figured the Brits would not bother with the expense and difficulty of re-taking them.
They thought wrong. It was a stupid move and they paid a high price for their stupidity. I am sure the message the British sent was heard around the world, so no, it was not a mistake.
.
2007-06-15 01:13:15 · answer #1 · answered by Jacob W 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
karl =the answer would have to be no , you say that you think it was a mistake that they were kicked out of the falklands . Being a seaman i have been to this island many a time , and if you look back in to the history of theses islands the west and the east falklands they are only seperated by 10 miles between the two , i have to ask you , as to why you think it was a mistake to throw the Argentinas of the the islands I mean those islands never even belong to to them and because argentina was close to these South Atlantic islands , they never owned them at all and so they even tryed to change the name of the islands to ISLAS MALVINAS ISLANDS , BUT the falklands islands were owned by the
Brishish Crown Colony. 1N1982 the Argentienians decided to lay clime to the Falkands Islands , AND WHEN THEY INVADED THE ISLANDS THEY LAID CLAIM TO THEM . AS you know they were told to get of the the island by Prime Minister in the U.K Margreat Thachter and they were given 3.months to get of them . you know what happened i prusum , THE people on the Island , are nearly all British , and the ENGLISH flag was making a statement that THE ISLANDS were still British. IF YOU READ BETWEEN THE lines , i think the argentinans , knew that the falklands was rich in minarals such as oil . and for any one who wanted to fish within the 200 mile area of these islands , they would of made a substantial , amount of money .
itish
2007-06-15 01:38:09 · answer #2 · answered by Tranquilty 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I completely agree with Jacob W. With an outsider's perspective (I'm American), I can say that opinions in the US at that time strongly supported Margaret Thatcher's decision. The Falklands were a British possession and were invaded by another country - Great Britain's actions were completely justified.
On the other hand... people in the Falklands are greatly outnumbered by both sheep and penguins. I can't imagine that they contribute Greatly to Britain's economy... but I understand the principle behind the whole incident.
2007-06-15 01:35:59 · answer #3 · answered by Aaron W 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. The Falkland Islanders are British.. it would be like France invading the Isle of Wight or Guernsey.
2007-06-15 01:08:45 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Absolutely not. It brought the end of the Dirty war, championed by one of the most ruthless and tyrranical regimes in the history of Latin America where over 25,000 people were killed.
2007-06-15 01:12:24 · answer #5 · answered by Mark B 2 · 2⤊ 0⤋
No because all of the people who live down there are British and they wish to remain British.
2007-06-15 05:41:05 · answer #6 · answered by COB RULE 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
That would be the Brits not us. We did not send any troops for that one.
2007-06-15 01:11:22 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Whose we? Britain?
2007-06-15 01:05:48 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
NO.
2007-06-15 01:04:04 · answer #9 · answered by lundstroms2004 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋