Argentina to invade Falklands, page 3

Could it happen again? Possibly. Remember, when Galtieri sent his troops over back in 1982, the Argentine economy was in a very bad condition - the idea of invading the Falklands would be to provide some sort of boost of morale to the population to give his military junta more time to consolidate their power base. Inflation and unemployment was sky-rocketing and there was very little that the military junta could do about it, so they had to somehow unite the populace or face being overthrown.

So we come to 2007... the Argentine economy is still not in great shape (but it's on the mend... a war would probably send the economy back into a slump since war isn't good for economic growth). It may be another uniting factor. I'd be surprised if Argentina decides to use military force to take the islands - the world is angry enough at the US for invading Iraq, so how would they react to an invasion of a little island whose population wish to remain British and is governed by a democratic nation? The sanctions alone would lead to economic meltdown for Argentina. And what's more, the Argentine government know this. I think 80% of Argentina in a recent poll said they disagreed with the Iraq war... so it'd be a bit hypocritical for that same 80% to support an invasion of the Falklands (no UN mandate, no excuse that it's a 'defensive war' since the UK wasn't attacking Argentina beforehand).

It could happen again, but it's unlikely at the moment. If Argentina is so determined to get them back I think they'll have learnt the lessons of 1982 and decide that it isn't worth the expense (which, let's face it, they can't afford... the state of the economy supporting a war coupled with UN sanctions would cause an economic meltdown, back to the precarious days of the late 1990s/early 2000s or worse), embarrassment (at both the probable defeat and the fact that Argentina started an illegal war of its own and disregarded the UN whilst simultaneously opposing the Iraq conflict) and loss of life to try to invade them again and will simply stick to the negotiating table. Neither side has anything to gain from a war, least of all Argentina.

I'm also interested in Kolmo's response. Why do you feel that Argentina should attempt to take the islands by military means? Is it worth the loss of life on both sides? Why is retaking the Falklands more important than strengthening democracy in Argentina to prevent the rule of military dictators and continuing the build-up of the Argentine economy? You know, things that actually benefit the vast majority of people rather than sending young men off to die for a flag-waving opportunity then some nasty, biting sanctions and another probable defeat?

I also think US involvement would be more likely and forthcoming this time. Relations between the US and Argentina have dropped since the 1980s and UK-US relations are possibly at their highest point since World War II. Besides which, I think Bush is grateful for British support after the atrocities of 9/11 and of the Afghanistan and Iraq campaigns... and a great deal of Americans are thankful too. The US has made noises towards China over the independence of Taiwan and Middle Eastern nations over the security of Israel... America is probably quite happy to make noises towards Argentina and, if necessary, give Britain support should a second conflict break out.

I sincerely hope it doesn't, because it would be such a pointless waste of life on both sides. But if it does, then I would support British troops all the way in the face of unprovoked and unnecessary aggression.