[Meerenuch]

You don't know what you're talking about. I say again WE did not star the war, Argentina did.

Actually, Britain chose to respond in a fight it could have easily ignored. Britain had already decolonized many of its former possessions preceding the war, and several Tory ministers had been open to ceding the island to Argentina anyway. It would have been less costly to repatriate any Islanders who wanted to remain British subjects. The decision to retaliate was Thatcher's, and 255 British servicemen died so that she could get a 10 percent poll boost. Both sides handled the situation poorly.

How are their claims "legitimate"? When the UK gained possession of the Falklands Argentina didn't even exist as a country. Argentina was independent before 1833.

The General Belgrano was an enemy vessel and so was a legitimate target. Even the Argentinians have accepted this. The exclusion zone was for neutral vessels. You miss the point. Given its location, the Belgrano did not pose a military threat to the British fleet yet Thatcher claimed it posed an immediate threat and its sinking was hailed as a heroic victory in the press. Rather than concentrate British naval forces on targets of tactical value, critical time was wasted on political theater. This underscores the tendency for British politicians to distort actual fact in war for political ends.

I ask again, if a foreign power invaded Alaska would you expect your government to stand by and do nothing? I'm not aware of any foreign power that claims territorial sovereignty over Alaska. Furthermore, Alaska is a US state, not a colonial possession gained through violence.