Quote:
Originally Posted by Chris
Yep, the key difference this time being it's a democratic, civilian government running the country rather than a crazed military junta. Civilian democracies, even slightly unhinged ones like Argentina, find it much, much harder to equip a large army and then to deploy it. Galtieri had the hardware at his disposal and a reason to believe the UK would not deploy its own hardware in response. Kirchner has basically the same standard of kit as Galtieri, but rather less of it. And this time there is rather a lot of British hardware sitting off the coast, armed and reasy to cause what's left of the Argentine military a lot of pain if necessary.
|
Yes I agree. But she is being seen to be doing something by the voters in Argentina. And that will win votes.
---------- Post added at 22:42 ---------- Previous post was at 22:39 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hom3r
I believe they are trying to emulate Maggie T.
But she is a one off.
|
Yes and it's a good job she is.
She won votes because we won the Falklands war. But if she had listened to the threats from Argentina, then she could have sent out a defence force, and there wouldn't have been a war at all.
One point of view is that it was good for votes for us to go to war instead.