Comments on: What if we’d lost the Falklands?

By: George Carty

George Carty — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:41:07 +0000

Indeed - Iraq is a fake country.

Under the Ottomans, what is now Iraqi Kurdistan traded more with Anatolia than with Mesopotamia, so if the empire had been partitioned on an economic basis it would have ended up as part of Turkey. But no, the British just had to get their hands on its oil…

By: Thersites

Thersites — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:03:10 +0000

The important difference between Argentina and Iraq was that it was the Argentinians who got rid of the junta. The governments that have followed have also been corrupt, but they’ve never been- or been able- to be as murderous. There’s also the question of whether there has ever been a unifying nationalism in Iraq as there is in Argentina. Do many Iraqis think of themselves as Iraqis rather than- say Kurds or- a rather different attitude- sunnis or shias who happen to live in a place called Iraq?

By: Lis

Lis — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 11:45:14 +0000

The upshot was that Argentina’s generals were the first military junta to fall from power in the Southern Cone;

Hamed, whether or not there was corruption in thatcher’s government it doesn’t detract from the the accuracy of the statement above. The Argentine defeat in the Falklands brought about a change for the good in the Argentine government- I know many Argentines and although many are still sore about the Falklands, they don’t disagree with this.

By: Hamed

Hamed — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 01:02:44 +0000

“We can debate the value of democracy, but military rule almost always delivers corruption and brutality”

As if Thatcher’s government was not filled with corruption and brutality itself. Are you going to say that then the Iraq war was justified because Saddam was brutal and corrupt (and more so than the Argentine dictatorship).

By: M Risbrook

M Risbrook — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 04:04:02 +0000

The Falklands war fought over oil reserves in the south Atlantic that were discovered during the 1970s.