Hardly that; while the Royal Navy was clearly a more modern and better equipped force, it suffered some dramatic losses against the third-rate Argentine military due to vulnerability to supposedly obsolescent Exocet missiles, exposing the RN deficiencies, and by extension, the joint USN-RN OpPlan deficiencies in the Atlantic in a strategic NATO-Warsaw Pact conflict. The Argentines, who under the direction of President Leopoldo Galtieri, invaded the Falklands mostly to divert from economic problems with the national reformation plan that was failing, expected the strained Britain to negotiate a deal that would appear favorable. Instead, vigorous military response, while somewhat Pyrrhic, caused a backlash in Argentina, resulting in Galtieri being deposed. The damaging victory suffered by the British actually spurred a long-overdue modernization of their naval forces (albeit to a questionable result).
As for the United States getting involved in the Falklands Conflict, no, it wasn’t our fight (unless you invoke the Monroe Doctrine, in which case we should have been standing in support of Argentina). We managed to wrangle our own pointless Central American conflicts with Grenada and Panama later, about which the British were fairly derisive.
With regard to the “Special Relationship”, in technical circles this refers specifically to the sharing of technical and intelligence information, and especially nuclear technology, delivery vehicles (the Polaris A-3 and Trident II D-5), and intelligence product about common enemies like the Soviet Union, Iran, China, et cetera. Our cultural and linguistic ties may facilitate this relationship, but the reality is that the British provided the basis for much of this (such as the tubealloys nuclear weapon program that became the Manhattan Project and the intelligence sources and product that gave us insight into the Soviet Union that we couldn’t develop ourselves).
I thought it pretty obvious that I understood that, and that my post was a lighthearted joke in response.
Ah well.
Most people try to act well in other countries. Most people do OK, but everyone screws up. Even when you know something, it can be hard to form the habit, and it’s easy to forget things.
Last time I was in the US, exactly that thing happened to me. The barman asked one of my friends if he’d done something to offend me. Then it clicked - “ah, the tip!”, and I was utterly mortified. Went over to him, apologised, made things right.
So I can’t believe any claim that folks just don’t forget about local customs they’re not used to. It’s very easily done.
Add to that I’m not sure exactly how much or when the tip is supposed to be given. We were about halfway through the evening there. Didn’t know whether it was with each drink, eveyr hour, end of the evening, or what. So there’s an element of hesitancy because you don’t want to appear stupid to the locals, and then it’s too late and you’ve gone and offended them anyway.
Best thing to do is what I did, I think. Once you’re aware you’ve broken a local custom, you apologise and try to make it right.
I never heard it called such, but, yeah, I’ve grown up knowing it was there. In fact, as a kid, it always perplexed me: “But they’re the bad guys that we had to beat up to get our own country!”
From the Australians I’ve met IRL, I perceive Australians as being similar to Americans only they don’t take themselves seriously. We take ourselves much too seriously.