zlacker

>>xd+(OP)
I realise she has just died and it's unbecoming to do anything but laud the person, but this is just moral obsequiousness.

She claims fealty by right of blood, reigned as the crown of an extraordinarily cruel empire, and frequently interceded in the democratic government of Britain to protect her private interests.

>>Emma_G+wd
She and her family is responsible for a lot of atrocities around the world. Yet a lot of people here are eulogizing as if she was a saint who taught art of living to the people.

To me this is a demonstration of power of conditioning and media management.

>>driedd+Qi
My family is Argentine. The Queen’s son personally boarded a war ship to travel 7000km away to kill Argentines because they dared assert sovereignty against another country in a completely separate hemisphere of the Earth. The idea that the days of empire building are behind us is false.

>>oceanp+On
Argentina itself is a creation of Spanish Imperialism, and British control of the islands dates to that same era, before Argentina became a nation. I don't see how either one can be claimed to be more or less creations of Imperialism than the other.

The fact is the British foreign office had been trying to find ways to offload the islands on Argentina for ages. The British government felt they were an expensive nuisance that were an obstacle to better relations in the region. The Galtieri regime only invaded because they needed a boost in popularity. Negotiation is one thing, but military occupation quite another.

There is (or could have been) a legitimate discussion to be had about the history of control of the islands. Sure. But those who resort to pre-emptive military force, when facing no threat to themselves, have no business complaining when the resulting conflict goes against them. Suez is a good example of us learning that lesson the hard way.