Teach me about the Falklands war

because the US controls NATO and the US sees the UK owning anything outside Europe as colonial tyranny. the US tried very hard to get the UK to just ignore the attack and give up the islands

>hey im argentinian so i would know all about the nuances to a big geopolitical event that happened before my birth simply because i was born here. also im white

Nationalism was a mistake.

He can know how the the legacy of the war is viewed by the general public

Article 5 only covers continental Europe.

No colonies allowed.

Same reason NATO didn't get involved in Algeria or Goa.

>How is the war generally viewed in Argentina?
Its viewed bitterly, some of the more nationalistic people feel that we should've won, they particularly believe our fighters as in flying planes (sorry bad englando) did a great deal of damage to the british destroyers and that if they could've fighter without restriction they could've won

And by that restriction i mean the regime, i wasnt born by the time of the war but when i was a kid i always heard that we as citizens thought we were winning the war, later we found that the money and food we were sending to the troops never make it to them, instead they were used by the officers, thats what i've heard anyways.

Im still writing...

Again sorry if i have bad english, im tired and on bed writing this on my phone
>Has it affected how people view Britain?
Maybe for the older generations, but the newer sort of like britain, more than anything if there's resentment toward the result of the war, its directed to our neighbors the chilenians.
>Is there any nationalistic urge to try and take them again from far right people?
Not really, if there is generally is some crazy old man, we look that war badly and mostly blame the ilegitimate goverment ergo the regime.

Also, what you would call far right its kinda different in argentina, we dont have what you would call far right, but we have something similar.

US did provide logistical support.

This, also the U.S (according to one interpretation) was bound to defend Argentina though the Rio treaty, the U.S argued that Argentina was the agressor and thus didn't have to help them, that's why when the U.S invoked it for the Iraq war almost no one in the Americas sent troops.

The US only invoked Article Five for Afghanistan, because the September 11th attacks had actually been an attack on US soil.

For Iraq, we just threw together a shitty coalition.

IMO it was.

>Why haven't you killed yourself yet you subnigger sudaca?
You would be surprised how many germanic people live on argentina, we arent all white, but we arent exactly like the rest of latin america either.

Btw this poster got a lot of it right, i wasnt alive by the time of the war, but what he says seems pretty much correct.

Thats the official reason. The true reason is that no one fucking agreed with invading Iraq, and had nothing to be gained by doing it.

Actually Brazil had things to be lost by the it being successful, but that is another story.

I didnt read the greentext part of your comment when i responded, i never claim to know everything but i have seen veterans of the war and i might be able to respond to some questions.

Besides im bored and about to go to sleep.

>but we arent exactly like the rest of latin america either.

That is exactly why everyone else in the world hate you guys.

I feel like they hate us cause we tend to be egocentrical at times, im not like this but generally an argentinian thinks of himself better than the rest of latin america.

I dont think we are better but we are different, specially if you go to the big cities you can see a lot of european descendents and arquitecture.

Also, im going to sleep, i might come back tomorrow if this thread is still alive.

US doesn't want the islands to be given, if so, they would have to pay a HUGE historical fine to Argentina, because in the XIX century an American ship attacked an argentinean port in Malvinas, which led to the events that endend up with the UK owning the islands.

>Why did the Argentines try to annex the islands?
Because the Junta was losing support and they did what any good Argentine government does - distract everyone with nationalistic circlejerks instead of trying to fix the many, many problems plaguing the country.

>How did they manage to lose?
They weren't able to project airpower over the islands effectively, and the Argentine ground forces weren't really good for much more than occupying the islands, so their morale broke pretty quickly once the ground fighting actually began.

Keep digging that grave, copito de nieve.

wrong board

i came back but i feel there are not many people interested in this subject.

he's right, you're on the wrong board, we discuss history here.

>have a country that was on its road to become the usa of south america
>mismanage it to the point that it is basically a 3rd world country

>the U.S argued that Argentina was the agressor

This isn't really an argument, it's a fact

i blame extreme corruption.

*blocks your path*

>Exocet

*blocks their escape route*

What are Royal Navy sailors doing in those uniforms? I can't fathom what use it might provide

It's windy

can you explain about that Brazil bit?

Oil.

>le Falklands was over oil
>oil that was only discovered after the war
>oil that is so far utterly worthless despite multiple attempts at extraction