1. It's funny how everyone complains and cries about the 70s dictatorship as if it had been the most terrible thing that ever happened in the country, yet before it started a terrorist bomb blew up every 5 hours. People were used to it to the point they got out of their houses simply hoping that something wouldn't blow up near them. It was a war, and a few thousand dead to get rid of that situation is completely justified. Now that march 24 is coming up I have to put up with the stupid "oh but the dictatorship was so bad! the resistance were heroes!" they were terrorists and gerrillas plain and simple, and the country is better off without them. They caused it in the first place, and likely killed even more innocents than the military. #

    Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:24:44 UTC from web
    1. @nerthos But the Malvinas!

      Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:26:16 UTC from
      1. @hfaust What do they want them for without a proper armada.

        Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:26:40 UTC from web
        1. @nerthos Only Thatcher got something out of that conflict.

          Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:27:39 UTC from
          1. @hfaust Honestly it was an incredibly stupid thing from all fronts. Politically, strategically, and logistically. Made just to justify the continuity of the military government. Through it though, all latin america won something, as it showed USA that encouraging dictatorships could cause those countries to turn against it's allies. It was rushed and poorly done, and the munition didn't work properly. The result could have been the opposite if the Argentinian armed forces had been properly equipped, supplied and commanded, instead of making them fight with obsolete vehicles, improper ammunition (using bunker buster bombs against boats, for example) and taking as much care of the infantry as the red army did under Stalin.

            Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:37:09 UTC from web
            1. @nerthos Thatcher gambled his position with this war. Her party were growing dissent against her ways to do things and probably would have her kicked out of door. If she had not have a good relationship with Reagan, we will probably be hearing another story. As a prime minister in a war, she changed this shameful moment for the British to one of national unity.

              I don't know much about the military junta's intention, probably trying to emulate what India did invading Portuguese Goa

              Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:53:50 UTC from
              1. @hfaust No, they were doing exactly the same thing. Both governments did it to hide crumbling support under a feeling of nationalism. Because who would think of questioning the government while at war?

                Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 02:56:07 UTC from web
                1. @nerthos I need to read more about that time in America, I know more about Thatcher and Reagan.

                  Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 03:00:37 UTC from
                  1. @hfaust I'm kind of fed up with the topic due to the political use of it by the latest governments, but the international scene of it is more interesting. The country is lately divided in three opinions on the issue: "abajo la dictadura", the moderates, and "ni fueron 30 mil ni eran inocentes". I'm the latter.

                    Wednesday, 23-Mar-16 03:05:00 UTC from web