Los Malvinas No Son Argentinas

This is another case, as with the Philippines, where a power makes a claim over a speck in the ocean, so far off shore that it can't even be seen, let alone disputed over.  Just because it's in 'the neighborhood' does not, by extension, automatically make it theirs.  Argentina has no more claim to the Falklands than Spain or France; both of which had a presence on the islands at one time or another, historically speaking, and Argentina was by no means the first people to land there.  The British have held the Falklands non-stop for 180 years... I think that pretty much establishes who owns it, and Argentine Belly-aching won't change that.  The naked truth is possession is not simply 9/10ths of the law... it IS the law.  If Argentina wants to make a grab for the Falklands as a way of rescuing their failed government, that's just fine, but they have no legal or moral ground to stand on, as far as justification is concerned.  They will also, most likely, learn the same lesson they learned back in 1982 and pull back another bloody stump.

The Brits could have easily lost 3-4 more ships if it weren't for the duds the Argentines were dropping from their A-4's.  They scored direct hits with 1000lb dumb bombs that didn't go off. Had the Brits lost 3 ore ships, would they still have been in the fight?  Argentina should take that as a sign it wasn't meant to be.

The commander defending Malta in WWII, or the cruiser commander supporting the Anzio landings or the commander defending Britain during the Blitz probably said the same thing, and (frankly) they had it a lot worse. I'm not saying that the British didn't suffer mightily, but they had advantages the Argentines did not have, and they were suffering just as much, if not more than the Brits did.  The fact of the matter was that the Argentinians had nothing going for them,  Tactically, strategically or even Geo-politically.  Britain had all sorts of support, while Argentina was isolated.  And while this was obviously no consolation to the commander who watched his squadron getting smaller and the casualties getting larger every day, the decision to fight or withdraw was not his to make.  The problem for Britain was that time was not on their side, so they were forced to bring the squadron into Port Stanley much earlier than the commander wanted, but that decision was made because strategic reality trumped tactical wisdom.  If the war were prosecuted more methodically, the results would have been much more one-sided in favor of Great Britain.  But the fact remains that the Argentinian forces occupying the Falklands had to be beaten on the ground, and they were, while the ships supporting them were forced to take the heat.  If you think about it, the Argentinians totally missed the point of the war and focused on sinking ships when they should have been supporting their ground troops from the air.  The loss of ships, while traumatic, would not have forced Britain off the island, while the loss of the occupation forces placed there by Argentina ended up losing them the war.  In the overall scheme of things, placing a few ships within reach of Argentinian warplanes was a good strategy (Whether they meant to do it or not) as it distracted the Argentines while the British ground troops pushed the invaders back and defeated them.  If you ask me, Great Britain made a good trade.