The article would argue that, rather than being the aggressor, Argentina is attempting to liberate a colonially oppressed region that rightfully belongs to Argentina.
At what point does “liberation” become “taking over?” What happened in 1841 is no excuse for invading your neighbor today.
There are fewer than 4000 people living on the islands.
When there was a referendum about whether to keep the current association with the UK, 3, three people voted no.
One, who cares about a tiny amount of land and a few thousand people, it should not be a big international issue.
Two, self determination of a population should be important. When 99.8% of the population votes for keeping the status quo, maybe just let them.
The British didn’t actually care that much about the Falklands - the British government had spent most of the 1970s trying to give them to Argentina, but the islanders opposed it, and they stirred up opinion against it in the UK and in Parliament, and the government’s plans were stymied. But when Argentina attacked-if the UK didn’t fight back, it would be open season on all their other territories around the world, including others they were less willing to cede. And the war destroyed all political prospects of the UK public ever agreeing to support a peaceful transfer.
I doubt the article would be able to argue that logically. One doesn't invade a place who's entire population has been attached to a country for greater than three generations.
I think given the article writer would realise that this would be the same argument that justifies the 2014 crimean invasion, or the trouble in Sudan(both of them), or indeed the troubles in Northern Ireland.
I agree it doesn’t make much sense in a large number of contemporary cases.