Self-determination of the "Falklanders"?

Politics are results of History. Sometimes results of Ignoring History. And Charles Krauthammer has a great talent to Mis-present History, in the Mid-East as much as everywhere else, it seems.
'Margaret Thatcher sent the Navy toprotect the self-determination of the Falklanders'? ? ? - The "Falklanders" did not even own one inch of those isles in 1982 - it was all government leasehold of one company, the "Falklanders" only peasant farmers of that company, and without any representation in the "motherland". That is "self-determination"?
And now to history. It does not start in 1982, a in Charles Krauthammer's hitory books, but in 1806: Argentinians had just fought for their Self-Determination (correct meaning!) and shoved off the Spanish rule (and that included the about 200 families of the Malvinas Islanders who lived there, as well as the thousands who came and used the isles as summer pasture for their livestock.
And the prime minister then sent the Navy, from South Africa, with a 10,000 men army, to re-colonize Argetina. But the Argentinians were still too well in war mood, beat and captured the whole invasion arrny - and sent them home.
30 years later, the Navy came again - and as they needed acoaling port before the turn around Cape Horn, they grabbed these Malvinas. Argentina was peaceful and had no navy to conquer other people's lands, and thus, the "Falklands" came up - not as a land of indigenous peoople: They were expelled by the British forces.
The whole thing looks a bit like the West Bank settlements and their "self-determination". I just guess, that is where Krauthammer gets his view from: "We want that -irrespective of natives and their self-determination - so, why should not our allies have the same "rights" to other people's lands?"