And we haven’t forgotten. A big BZ to all the troops who fought.
On which side?
My wife has ties to Argentina and not only takes their side, but refuses to call the islands the Falklands. She prefers Malvinas. She thinks Argentina was correct in trying to take them back. I side with the British. We try to avoid the subject…
An odd affair, that war. The Argentinians were calling the islands “The Malvinas” long before the war, and claiming it for a long time. The islands are pretty much tied to Argentina for all practical purposes – it’s the closest land, and supply ships run to and from there. The Falklands aren’t really of any strategic or economic importance to the UK. Many people have suggested that a transfer probably could’ve been made peaceably (although I understand that a lot of the residents considered themselves UK subjects, and wouldn’t have been happy about that).
But when the Argentinians appropriated the islands, the British felt they had to respond forcefully, lest they lose face and invite aggression elsewhere. They still held Hong Kong, for instance.
The resulting conflict took 2 ships and just under 1000 lives in 74 days of combat. People learned what an “Exocet” was. Wikipedia lists some outcomes:
O, BTW what’s a BZ? KTHX
“Bravo Zulu”, “Well Done” in modern NATO ACP-175 shorthand code (and, correspondingly, flag/voice/text/wireless communication).
This is thecraziest thing I have ever watched. (re The Falklands War)
To be clear, today is the anniversary of the initial Argentine invasion and seizure. Obviously, the UK response took a while, having to get their forces all the way across to the South Atlantic.
Why did the conflict avert the Argentine-Chile war? Because the Argies needed somebody to have a fight with?
Thanks for both clarifications, gnoitall. 
I’m still not sure who we are supposed to be wishing well to from the OP, the Argentinians, or the Brits. One could make a case that “And we haven’t forgotten” can be taken as both a positive well-wishing thought and also as a snide sarcastic putdown, and applied as either to both sides.
This Wikipedia article indicates that Argentina was in a border conflict with Chile, with Chile holding the status quo (in other words, Argentina claimed territory held by Chile).
From a neutral perspective, Argentina would have been the aggressor.
The Argentinians decided to fight the Falklands conflict instead.
Although a lot of people don’t believe it, it’s possible to respect the valor and sacrifice of all participants regardless of which side (if either) you prefer (or condemn).
I prefer to think the OP was in that spirit.
Oh, I can believe it.
The OP just seems to be ambiguous. Generally, people don’t give “BZ” to both sides in a war.
End of accidental hijack. 
I’ve made my position known several times before about what led to this war.
I am still glad that we won it, but it need not have been fought at all, we had plenty of opportunities to prevent it, and had actually responded on three previous occasions when Argentina began organising to invade.
As far as the Malvinas thing, its always been a crock because their ‘claim’ dates to a period before Argentina actually existed, and was never part of Argentine territory. Its almost like Scotland claiming part of Ireland because England once ruled over both.
If we were to try roll back the clock to a claim held by our national predecessors with whom we had no connection, then we would probably be redrawing maps to ensure that Alexander the Great ruled a large chunk of Europe and the Middle East - and give it some name such as Greater Macedonia
Its absurd, look at the situation in the Middle East where claims go back to a time that is convenient to the claimant - and don’t forget that historical grievances are real enough to lead to world wars.
Rather more than that. On the British side the destroyers Sheffield and Coventry, the frigates Ardent and Antelope, the landing ship Sir Galahad and the container ship Atlantic Conveyor were all lost. In addition several other vessels suffered major damage but weren’t complete write-offs.
On the Argentine side the cruiser General Belgrano and cargo ships Río Carcarañá and Isla de los Estados. With a few others badly damaged or captured.
As a naval/air engagement, the Falklands War was surprisingly intense.
The submarine AFA Santa Fe was also lost. But yes, it was a short and brutal war, not just in the air and sea; some of the land engagements were very back to basics.
Here’s a diagram of the refuelling sequence required to safely get one Vulcan bomber to the Falklands from Ascension (and back). File:Refuelling.plan.black.buck.svg - Wikimedia Commons
I’ve always felt this was a rather absurd war. It would be almost as if Argentina owned the Shetland Islands and sent warships all the way up the Atlantic to take them back from a UK seizure of the Shetlands.
Yes, I know, if someone attacked Guam, for instance, the USA would defend, but from a looking-at-the-map perspective, Argentina’s claim appears reasonable.
Short though it might have been, the Falklands War was an incredibly important war in terms of our understanding of modern naval warfare. The vulnerability of the Royal Navy to aerial attack was very surprising; aside from the fact that Argentina’s air force and naval aviation fought with a ferocity and skill even the Argentine command didb’t fully expect, the danger presented by aircraft was technically even higher than the British had feared. Argentina’s Super Etendards proved able to release their Exocets and escape before Royal Navy forces could engage. Furthermore, the absolute dominance of HMS Conqueror over the Argentine navy (Conquerer sank General Belgrano) was very telling in terms of the impact nuclear submarines have. Argentina’s ships had basically no defence at all against Conqueror.
The turning point of the war might simply have been that Argentina chose to invade before they had a full complement of Exocet missiles. They had just six (or eight; I am having some trouble figuring out who had what) to fight the war with, and with them destroyed two ships and badly damaged a third. (Antelope and Ardent were destroyed by conventional bombing attacks.) Had the Argentines had, say, 30 or 40 missiles, they would have likely won the war. There’s just no way the Royal Navy could have maintained its position.
So countries can just claim bits of land that they have never been in possession of just because they look a bit close on a map? Good luck with that!
It’s a case of “justified-but-absurd.” Or “absurd-but-justified.”