Teribus - You misconstrued my comments. I was entirely sympathetic with the wishes of the Falkland Islanders themselves to remain in the British Commonwealth. I was entirely opposed to Argentina's unprovoked invasion. I agree with you that the wishes of the local population are absolutely paramount in such a situation, and that their right of self-determination is the most important consideration by far.

When I said that I understood why the Argentinians feel they should own those islands....I did not say that I sympathized with their viewpoint. I did not. Their notions of territorial proximity to that area being a pretext for annexing it are NO justification for ignoring the clear wishes of the inhabitants of that area.

In brief: We are in agreement on this one! ;-D If you still wish to argue about something, it'll have to be something else.

****

I also wish to add, just in case anyone on the Left now mistakenly thinks that I adore Margaret Thatcher and all she stands for....NOPE! I detest her general political philosophy and attitude. I am opposed to most of the things she did. But I think she was quite justified in taking military action to recover the Falklands.

****

Big Al suggests that she deliberately enticed the Argentinians into invading those islands so she could have a "lovely little war" and boost her political fortunes. Hmm. Interesting theory. Positively Machiavellian, if true! It's a delightful way to look at it if you wish to consistently hate Maggie Thatcher under any and all conditions, no matter what, simply on principle! ;-D But I have no opinion one way or the other about it at this point. I'm not saying it couldn't possibly have been so. I'm just saying, "I don't know", and I have no opinion about it.