"victory to the Iraqi resistance which means the working class coming to the fore and arming the workers."
It might mean that in your head, but I'm intrigued to know how it can actually mean that in life. Indeed the workers need to be armed. But surely a good part of what they need to be armed *for* is to defend workers and others from the sectarian crazies who constitute 'the resistance'.
If you mean you'd like a *different* 'resistance' (to imperialism) consisting of armed workers, well that would be great. Hardly 'victory to the (existing) resistance', though.
Ditto 'victory to Argentina'. If the Argentinian bourgeoisie was fighting for something democratic, something workers had an interest in, and what have fought for anyway - maybe that makes sense. But why would *workers* and *socialists* and *internationalists* and *democrats* want to impose Argentinian rule on a small group of foreigners on some islands? What democratic programme could that possibly serve?