3 ms·
The Falklands are British. The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force. Desert Storm: The US did not hold any ground for
by lobster_johnson 13y ago
The Falklands are British. The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force.
Desert Storm: The US did not hold any ground for a long period of time. They defeated the Iraqi forces and withdrew.
- tolmasky 13y agoAlso, the population of the falklands is around 3000 total people. Even if it were an "occupation" (which I agree it is not since most people there identify as British), it would be like occupying a tiny village.
- bdunbar 13y ago> The British forces did not "take and hold ground", the repelled an invasion force. Incorrect. The Argentines surprised the small garrison, had the place in a few hours. The Brits then mobilized an amphibious force and had to take the Falklands back. > did not hold any ground for a long period of time. I don't recall there being a qualification for 'time spent on the ground'. And incorrect because we've had forces in Kuwait ever since.
- lobster_johnson 13y agoYou're arguing semantics. In the Falklands, the ground was British in the first place, and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island; they repelled an invasion force, and saying that "held ground" is like saying the US has "held ground" from the British since the Revolution. Similarly, Kuwait was friendly territory; I was referring to Iraq.
- bdunbar 13y ago> and the Argentinians did not occupy the entire island One of us needs to review that conflict. And it's not me.