So, the fact seems to have escaped you that the Argentine Army was comprehensively routed in what is universely recognised as a stunning military achievment, overrunning enemy positions that were prepared and dug in, in harsh conditions and terrain, at the end of an 8000 mile long supply line, and the regime that sanctioned the invasion was overthrown a short while later.
Apparantly, by your logic, that makes the Argentines 'all-powerful' and constitutes a total humiliation for the British.
No, we didn't have the resources to invade the Argentine mainland, not that it was either necesary or politically desirable. You also overlook the fact that Thatcher did this in the face of less than 100% American support and had to give Reagan a lesson on what was at stake in the face of his attempt to broker a ceasefire to save face for the Argentines.
At least try to get some factual basis into your obvious anti-British trolling.
<< "No, we didn't .... invade the Argentine mainland, not that it was either "necesary" (sic) or "politically desirable" .... >>
".... Or achievable, given that we were by then a long-ago-miserably-failed socialist state and focussed more on such secondary considerations as providing "free" eye glasses, cheap false teeth and abysmal Paki-provided "health care" to indolent geezers and other dole bludgers than on the defense of our once proud one-time First Class Nation. Which defense we had long since shrugged off to the envied, loathed, despised and, bloody ingrates that we are, neither acknowledged nor thanked Americans, to whose blood and treasure we had, since 1917, owed all that, any more, passed for our freedoms -- and had long since lost any of the resolve, the courage or the means to deliver the Argentines, where they bloody live, the bloody hiding their contemptuous Falking with our Islands so richly deserved!"
And although our help down there wasn't particularly overt, it was essential -- and it worked.
Cheers, Old Cobber -- BA