While I think it’s valid to criticise a lot of UN Peacekeeping operations as you have done, now, the situation was quite a bit different back then. Until the 1990s, UN Peace Keeping operations were fairly rare, and they tended to be undertaken by forces including significant numbers of troops from first world nations. For example, during the 1970s (the period just prior to the Falklands War), there were only three UN Peacekeeping operations, headed by nations such as Finland, Canada, France, and Denmark. In the 1990s, there were 28 UN Peacekeeping operations, many of which were being undertaken by half trained soldiers from countries with significant corruption problems. How UN Peacekeeping operations are undertaken changed dramatically after about 1988.
I was merely using Australia and New Zealand as examples of natural allies to the UK and that it was certainly expected that they would help England to kick out Argentina from the Falklands.
Comparing them to Guam and Puerto Rico was not a comment on the military capabilities of Australia and NZ at all but rather a poke at your "allies" comment. As if Guam and PR would not be an ally to us in a similar situation.
So which is it, Scotsman, did the US assist the UK or not with the Falklands?
