Lest we forget,
But I have to be the bastard fly in the ointment here, and point out certain issues within the original description by Tore. I respect his patriotism but i must clarify certain positions taken.
1) The Military Junta of Argentina started the war by its' own accord and there is speculation that this was done to inflame nationalist sentiment within Argentina so that the population could be distracted from its own internal strife.
2) Great Britain never, I repeat never, came close to a position of losing possession of the Malvinas. Even under Argentine occupation, the citizens of the Falklands never faltered in their loyalty to the Queen. To this day, the citizenry are avowed monarchists which is much to the detriment of any political claims for ownership by the Argentinians.
3) It is true that the Brits had no landing ships at their disposal, but that wasn't exactly necessary as they modified civilian transports to accommodate a small number of Harrier jets which were found to be capable of limited flight operations from the decks of these modified vessels. Passenger ships were used to transport infantry and the remainder of the escort group was comprised of standing Royal Navy assets.
4) It was simply retarded of Argentina to deploy the Belgrano without any anti-submarine warfare capabilities. An interesting piece of trivia is that the Belgrano was sunk with a WW2 era torpedo, as the British sub captain was hesitant to use his modern, yet unproven torpedoes. Subsequently, all Argentinan naval assets were ordered to remain in port to better protect against the possibility of further submarine strikes.
5) The Malvinas lie just within the outermost striking limit of the Argentine Mirage jets, so while they posed a serious threat to RN vessels with their Exocet missiles, that very threat was mitigated by the fact that the Argentinian incursions were very limited in their duration (or hang/loiter time) over the target area (mostly around Port Stanley).
Great Britain used this to their advantage but admittedly their anti-aircraft protocols left much to be desired. In fact, they (UK) still used acoustic sensor technology for guiding their AA guns but this proved dangerous in terms of the friendly fire incidents that ensued.
6) Argentina was ill prepared for the British landing assault but that didn't stop them from laying minefields that still exist to this day, the British didn't help either by laying even more landmines (I hate mines). In truth, the blame for Argentinian failure lies solely on the generals who led those lambs to the slaughter. Once naval superiority was established by Great Britain, the outcome of the war was virtually guaranteed.
The Falklands conflict is a model war in terms of what was learned by all sides. Such a small conflict in terms of numbers had a massive effect on the world stage. Much information and learning is still to be learned from the outcome.
It concreted Maggie Thatcher's power, helped lead to the downfall of the military junta, established basic expectations for modern naval complements (the adequate mix of aerial, naval and submarine assets), and also demonstrated the need for better defences against airborne and sub-surface threats.
We will remember them, their memory will be preserved so that it will never be repeated again.
