E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSArgentina is slamming Prince William's deployment to the Falklands. Some Argentine veterans say the move is aggressive and arrogant, but most residents on the islands are preparing to welcome the Prince. ITN's Bill Neely reports.
Argentina’s government plans to lodge a complaint with the United Nations over “militarization” of the South Atlantic, Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner announced on Tuesday.
"Malvinas is no longer an Argentine cause, it's now a Latin American cause, a global cause," Fernandez said, calling the Falkland Islands by the name they're known by in Argentina.
Fernandez said she wants peace with in the region and "democracy and sovereignty" in the islands, according to an English translation published by the Buenos Aires Herald.
Argentina’s planned complaint to the United Nations assembly was first reported on a Twitter post by the BBC.
Prince William flies first Falklands sortie for RAF stint
Fernandez also said she would sign a decree declassifying a secret military-era report about the 1982 Falklands War. A government panel will review the Rattenbach Report, which is said to outline mistakes made by the junta at the time of the bloody conflict. The panel will decide what can remain classified, she said.
Fernandez spoke before a diverse assembly of government and union leaders in a nationally televised address.
British diplomat: Argentina may block flights to Falklands
The announcement came as tension was resurfacing between Britain and Argentina over sovereignty of the British-ruled islands off the South American continent.
Britain has rankled Argentina on the 30th anniversary of a war by sending one of its most-advanced naval vessels, the HMS Dauntless destroyer, on a mission there. And on Saturday, Britain's Prince William took to the skies over the Falklands in his first sortie as a Royal Air Force search-and-rescue helicopter pilot.
Argentina to UK: Prince arriving dressed as 'conquistador'
For its part, the Argentine government has been critical of British actions. The Argentine foreign minister called Prince Williams appearance in the Falklands, as if he was arriving as a “conquistador.”
On Tuesday, Argentina, which owns the rights to the country’s wildly popular first-division soccer league matches, named the upcoming season in honor a naval ship sunk by British torpedoes during the conflict.
During the 74-day Falkland war, 649 Argentines and 257 Britons died. The war humiliated the military government and paved the way for Argentina’s return to democracy.
More from msnbc.com and NBC News:
- Flag-waving Syrians welcome Russian envoy
- 'Death to Christians': Suspected Jewish extremists deface monastery
- Taliban lite? Afghans ponder power-sharing
- Why do Dickens characters still resonate 200 years on?
Leave a Comment:
I happen to think Argentina has a case. Certainly this is the way to go about it, and not by launching a war.
Another Latin American leader that is hallucinating.to go along with Chavez,Ortega.Correa and Castro.Argentina invaded the Falklands in 1982 during the dictatòrship.Also Argentina has no claim to the Falklands .It never belonged to them.What is this woman thinking??
It never belonged to Great Britain until they landed on it.
I say send some arms to Argentina and let them blast the British and take it, then. Since we are picking favorites.
ARGENTINA:
1. Never laid Claim to the Islands
2. Invaded British Territory in 1982
ENGLAND:
1. Laid Claim to the Islands
2. Defended themselves from an invasion by Argentina in 1982.
Argentina started hostilities...British Warships went to the South Atlantic to protect WHAT IS THEIRS
ARGENTINA STARTED THIS......NOW THEY ARE COMPLAINING...?...?
Can we call this England's Vietnam? lol :P
The fact is that the Falkland Islanders (all ten of them...) identify as UK citizens. Self-determination tells us that the islands are British.
Allergic: Argentina has been claiming for the islands since 1835 (the islands were taken by an American ship in 1831 and then by a Brit in 1832. I suggest you to read the history books instead of screaming out of your lungs so everybody notice that you are the stupid that is causing your own allergy.
About 70 per cent are of British descent, primarily as a result of Scottish and Welsh immigration to the islands. The native-born inhabitants call themselves "Islanders"; the term "Kelpers", from the kelp which grows profusely around the islands, is no longer used in the Islands. People from the United Kingdom who have obtained Falkland Island status are known locally as 'belongers'.
A few Islanders are of French, Gibraltarian, Portuguese and Scandinavian descent. Some are the descendants of whalers who reached the Islands during the last two centuries. There is also a small minority of South American, mainly Chilean origin, and in more recent times many people from Saint Helena have also come to work and live in the Islands.
NOT ONE MENTION OF ARGENTINE ANYTHING.
I suggest you read the history of the Falkland Islands. Then, read how Argentina started the Falkland war in the 80's. And, how quickly the UK marched 6,000+ miles and kicked Argentina's a**.
Judging from your comments I guess you think we should give Florida back to Spain, or Louisiana back to the French. Freedom comes at a price. A price you apparently would rather just give up than have to defend.
The confederate States of America nearly laid claim to Cuba in the 19th century. In the 20th century, after the Spanish American war, there was an attempt to bring Cuba into the American sphere of influence. Cuba is considered independent now because of the choice of the inhabitants. The same should be held true for the Faulkland Islands. I the inhabitants identify themselves as Brittish. Just because it is an Island 300 miles off the coast, doesn't mean the Argentinians have a right to it. America has no right to claim Cuba either. Argentina invaded the Faulklands in 1982, now they complain because the islanders want to defend themselves.
Argentina has no legitimate claim to the Falkland Islands. The Islands were under US control until the US ceded control to the British. Most of the inhabitants of the islands identify themselves as British and are of British ancestry. There are virtually no inhabitants on the islands of Argentine ancestry. I certainly hope that the UN tells Argentina where they can go with their complaint. The only reason that the British have stepped up their military presence is the threatening rhetoric coming from the delusional Argentine administration. Argentina started the war in 1982 and the British simply defended their territory as any other nation would. They defeated the Argentines and maintained their control over the islands. Now with the 30 year anniversary of that war upon us, the Argentine government has started making threatening statements about again trying to take the islands from Britain. The British responded by send down one of their warships to "show the flag." As for Prince William being there, this is only a coincidence of timing with his deployment as a search and rescue helicopter pilot assigned to the Falklands as his duty station. This increased military activity is the fault of the Argentine government and they have no one to blame but themselves. I certainly hope that the UN tells them so and quickly puts this to rest.
The Bahamas are 300 miles from Miami. Maybe the US should invade and take them. I suspect there are a number of Americans there at any time - probably many more American's in the Bahamas than Argentines in the Falklands. (Tongue in cheek).
In all seriousness if the residents of the Falklands were clammoring for Argentine rule then I'd say that Argentina had a case. However, I've seen nothing to indicate that? I personally think this is a case nationlistic saber rattling for purpose of political distraction. (i.e.: Good use of an easy political hot-button to distract the average Argentinian away from their concerns about high consumer inflation (non-government sanctioned statistics peg it at around 10% year over year).
Why not let the ppl decide? They HAVE spoken and chose to remain British. Do the Argies want another ass whuppin?
If you listen to the arguements on either side, it is really dumb to support either Argentina or Great Britain. Its dirt in an ocean, and whoever raced to get their flag their first isn't blessed by God to own the land. The US DID invade islands off its coast for no good reason, and it was Spain that was the far away power. So, you think we are giving those islands back to Spain? No, because we don't have to.
So the only reason GB still has the islands is because it has a stronger military. That doesn't mean anything morally. And sorry to say, it doesn't matter AT ALL what the people of the Falklands identify themselves as. Because those islands will be taken or given away regardless of their concerns. They just happen to be a handy excuse.
Morality fails in this might makes right bitch-fest. Go ahead and pick your side, like you are watching a football match.
Time4a purge: FYI, We bought Florida from the Spaniards for $ 5 million and the American renunciation to any claim of Texas due to the Louisiana purchase, which we bought from the French for $15 million. The islands in the South Atlantic were never bought, they were taken. Now, your point is?
Charles the Hammerhead: The only condition for which Cuba remained independent was that in turn the US would keep Puerto Rico as a possession. You have to understand in both cases (whether the case of PR of the islands in the South Atlantic is this: Both islands have more of a strategic value than they have economic. Whoever control those islands control the naval traffic in the area. In the case of Puerto Rico, it is the access to the Caribbean sea, and back then when we went to war with Spain, we took that island because we would be able to control the maritime traffic (in case of a war) trying to get to the Southern ports of the US. The islands in the South Atlantic have the same strategic value. Whoever control those islands, have control over Cape Horn, which is the only viable pass between the Atlantic and the Pacific in case that the Panama canal is disabled. That is the main reason why the Brits would not relinquish those islands, no matter whether they are right or wrong in the claim. It's like thinking that they would at one point in time cede their claims over Gibraltar... too much military value to be given away.
Justice
I suggest you should also read a history book.
The French had a settlement at Port Louis from 1764-1767
The British had a garrison at Port Egmont from 1766-1774 with one short break.
The Spanish took over Port Louis from 1767-1811
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland/gettingitright.pdf
The Falkland Islanders wish to remain British and the Argentinians should respect their right to do so under article 1.2 of the UN charter
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter1.shtml
It is likely that this has more to do with internal Argentinian political problems than any real expectation of success.
Another Fine Mess: Which books you want me to read? The ones written by the English or the ones written by other authors with no political interest in the matter? Because I have read the latter... so, CYA (Check your assumptions), a British site is not an impartial site to find research... keep on playing...
A growing sense of power and unity developing in South America would lead them to think of the Maldives as a strategic point of defense for the whole south american continent. It is only logical for them to want those islands.
While the highly developed nations are struggling to survive the banking rip-off, the developing nations have had a good healthy growth rate going. Brazil is building its own nuclear subs now.
Dream on, what is your point??
German,
Should be an obvious point. South America is waking up to their own strengths, soon going to be the new young stud on the block, and they will be wanting to play the game with the rest of the big boys. Why do we have bases scattered around the world? Why do we have Guam for instance? Why did we hold on to Puerto Rico? Strategic islands for defense of our interests. Don't be so dense.
I'm not taking one side or the other on this issue, just pointing to the obvious reasons behind the Argentine actions. I think that just recently some other south american countries signed an agreement not to let ships from the Faulklands use their ports, so it is a south american thing, not just Argentine.
Plotinus: The Maldives are in the Indian Ocean. The islands they're talking about here are the Malvinas (aka Falklands).
GAdude,
Yeah, I caught the mistake after it was too late to change in that first post. Fixed the prob downstream.
Leave the Falklands alone Argentina.
People have a right to self determination and Falklanders have decided to be British, 99% as a matter of fact!
Recent polls attest to that!!
The British have been there for at least 180 years ++ Falklanders consider themselves members of the British Empire as they call it. Additionally, the Argentinean government is one of the most interventionist in the world with a very low economic freedom index. Under their rule, islanders would get the shaft and their US$38 thousand per capita income would probably plummet even below Argentina´s US$ 5 thousand per capita income. If Argentina rules the Falklands all the islanders´ hard gained riches through sheep farming would be lost. Just look a the history of their currency:
The pound is the currency of the Falkland Islands, a British Overseas Territory in the South Atlantic Ocean. The symbol is the pound sign, £, or alternatively FK£, to distinguish it from other pound-denominated currencies. The Falklands pound has always been pegged to the pound sterling at par and banknotes of both currencies are used interchangeably on the islands (although only notes issued by banks in the United Kingdom are generally accepted in Britain itself).
The pound was introduced following the reassertion of sovereignty in the Falklands Islands by the British in 1833. Initially, the British currency circulated, with the pound subdivided into 20 shillings, each of 12 pence. Specific issues of banknotes have been made for the Falkland Islands since 1899. In 1971, the pound was decimalized and subdivided into 100 pence. Coins have been minted specifically for the Falklands since 1974. During the earlier Argentine occupation, the peso circulated. In 1974, ½, 1, 2, 5 and 10 pence coins were introduced. 50 pence coins were introduced in 1980, followed by 20 pence in 1982, 1 pound in 1987 and a circulating 2 pounds in 2004. The ½ penny coin was last issued in 1983 and was demonetized shortly after. Smaller versions of the 5p, 10p and 50p, corresponding to the current UK issues, were issued in 1998, replacing the larger versions (which for the 5p was eight years after its introduction in the UK). The introduction of the circulation £2 coin in 2004 was six years after the same coin was issued in the UK. All the coins have the same composition and size as the corresponding British coins.
Between 1899 and 1901, the government introduced notes for 5 and 10 shillings, 1 and 5 pounds. The 5 shilling notes were issued until 1916. In 1969, in preparation for decimalization, the 10 shilling note was replaced by a 50 pence note. 10 pound notes were introduced in 1975, followed by 20 pounds in 1984 and 50 pounds in 1990. Banknotes in circulation are:
Falklands' banknotes feature the same images, differing only in their respective denominations and corresponding colors. On the front side, all notes contain a portrait of Queen Elizabeth II, the Falklands' coat of arms, a small map of the islands, and images of two of the islands' main animals, penguins and sea lions. On the back, notes feature pictures of Christ Church Cathedral in Stanley and Government House, the official residence of the Governor of the Falkland Islands. Source: Exchange rate.com.
How more British can you get??
Finally, it´s funny to assume that Argentina can reclaim islands they never owned. Before Britain it was Spanish, before Spain it was French, before France it was Dutch. The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina. These islands were uninhabited that made a good emergency port for whalers, pirates, and ships transiting the Cape. The only permanent residents to ever desire living there have been British for almost 200 years. Argentina claims are based on a gift of the Islands from Spain when they achieved their independence. But could Spain give something they didn't own? In any case, the population of the Falklands is British and wishes to remain so.
Therefore, it follows that the Falklands are British territory, and England might have to enforce this with her naval, aerial, and infantry forces. Just alone the the HMS Dauntless destroyer sent recently by England could wipe out most of Latin America´s air forces, put together.
Why don't the British invade Argentina and send in a modern day Col. Dyer , a shoot first kinda of guy , get the British moral pumping again like their glory days in India. After that they could send the paratroopers back into Ireland. Pratice those shots into the back of someones head thats unarmed .
maldives, an example of third millennia colonialism.
HEY IDIOT ......
The "MALDIVES" are a groups of Islands (Mostly Reefs & Atols) THAT BEGIN ABOUT 280 MILES south of India. WRONG PART OF PLANET EARTH.
COLONIALISM...?...?....?
The Falkland Islands were Claimed by the British, Populated by the British, Developed by the British.
WHERE DOES ARGENTINA COME INTO PLAY????
The feel just like 30% of Americans do..... ENTITLED TO SOMETHING THAT IS NOT THEIRS, AND GET THAT SOMETHING FOR NOTHING.
Actually the Spanish were there and left leaving a plaque claiming the islands. The British were on another island and left, also leaving a plaque claiming them. Then it got kinda vague with so many hanging out and leaving. Bad place and no one really liked being there. There was a settlement founded with permit from what was to become Argentina, Rio Platte something or other, but a British force arrived and evicted them. They were not armed enough to resist, plus they had some Brits in their ranks who wouldn't fight their homeland.............so they left and the brits have been there ever since.
So yes, Argentina as it became later was there. But the brits have been there now a long time.
Actually Plotinus it was an American warship who kicked the Argentinean garrison off the island in 1831, the Brits did not arrive until 1832
The Brits arrived in 1764 and formally claimed the Islands in 1765.
Britain has claimed and occupied to some extent the Falklands since before Argentina was even a country. Argentina has never actually occupied or had citizens living on the Falklands, except for intermittent unsuccessful skirmishes with the British. The people in the Falklands are British and have always been British. All this Argentinian crap is not unlike the US deciding that the Bahamas were part of the US and kicking the Bahamian Government out of the Bahamas. Total bull.
Er , Plotinus. I do beleive that the Maldives are in the Indian ocean. About 12000 miles away.
Si escribí Maldives quería decir Malvinas pues. desculpa.
If I wrote Maldives I meant Malvinas. Excuse the slip.
WOW someone just figured out how to use his high school Latin.
Get a grip dude. That's not latin. It's the language spoken by the Argentinians. Maybe you should have stayed in school and got your diploma.
Gotten your diploma?
More correct to say "gotten", I guess. Also when I wrote "desculpa" it would have been more correct to have written "desculpe". But that's ok. With enough of you guys critiquing every word it will all come out ok in the end. I guess.
Plotinus: It's disculpe or disculpa... not with e...
Justice,
Thanks. I've been learning Spanish bit by bit most of my life so any help is appreciated. A very interesting language and culture.
So how would I say it, "Gracias, amigo"?
That's correct. Gracias, amigo. And I will respond, "de nada" (which means you're welcome).
Imagine if Mexico claimed western Texas because it used to own western Texas 200 years ago. What would the Texans say? The Argentinians claim to the Falklands is even worse than that, because they never owned the islands in the first place!
Yes, they owned the islands until 1831, when an American warship expelled the people in the island. The Brits took the island one year later, and Argentina has been claiming for them since 1835.
The French controlled the Islands 1764-1767; British 1765-1770 - some of this period jointly with Spain who, having claimed the Islands under a Papal Bull of 1493 (!) which split South America between Spain and Portugal, were somewhat non-plussed to discover that both Britain and France had well-established settlements on the Islands. Spain was able to buy the French out (they were allies) but they had to reach an uneasy peace with the British (who weren't allies due to the Spanish historically doing naughty things like sending Armadas up the English Channel and supporting every enemy of Britain they could possibly find). The Spanish stayed on until 1811 then left and the Islands remained unnocupied for two decades until they swiftly shifted between being controlled by the predecessor of Argentina then the US then Argentina again and, finally, Britain regained control in 1833.
Bizarrely, the Argentinians insist on calling the Falklands 'Islas Malvinas' (Spanish) but this is derived from the name the earliest French rulers gave the Islands, Iles Malouines, named after the town of St. Malo in Brittany. Literally, the St. Malo Islands!
(I have read that some Mexican text-books still refer to parts of Texas and Southern California as 'the disputed territories'. ;)
Oh ho! So the Falkland Islands really belong to the U.S.
Mexico would be perfectly justified in taking back West Texas, Arizona, New Mexico, and California too. They're not militarily strong enough to do it though, which is why the U.S. was able to take those areas from them in the first place. Might makes right. Argentina would be wise to realize that the same principle applies to the Falklands.
GAdude You would be right except for one fact. Mexico signed a treaty ceding those lands to the U.S.
Glad you can read history and be a lawyer at the same time.
I still think the main point over the Malvinas/Faulklands is that South America is trying to define itself as a territorial power and the islands guard their back door from the Atlantic. They do have a wisp of a claim, but not much. The inhabitants are brits and that pretty much says it for me, plus the brits and us yanks are pretty much one and the same. So you could say that the brits have a base that guards our most southern ass too. Methinks the whole thing is a military issue. Some say oil.
What is there to protect? The first invasion by Argentina was to take the Argentinian minds off the problems at home. The islands are not fortified and sitting out there in the middle of nowhere makes no difference to anyone.
If you go back to who got there (and named them) first the Falklands are clearly French! Yikes!
The British keep a military contingent and fighter aircraft on the Islands; a warship on patrol around that area of the South Atlantic (which is not unusual given that most G8 countries keep a ship or two patrolling round most of the waters of the world) and it's widely suspected (though never confirmed) a submarine in the waters.
Maybe Argentina shouldn't have invaded a British Commonwealth protectorate, gotten beaten in the ensuing war, and still hold a grudge.
If the Argentines want the British to stop sending warships and troops to the Falklands, they can bloody well stop threatening to invade the islands.
That sounds like the China - Taiwan thing.
Old vet: Invade with what? If after the military government was thrown out of power in 1983, the armed forces were systematically reduced to a defense force. They lack the capabilities to engage in any type of invasion. Even then in 1982, the invasion was a last minute attempt of the military rule to perpetuate themselves in power.
If it comes to another war, I wonder if Israel will supply arms to Argentina again?
This is seriously stupid. What genius decided to post the Prince to these islands and stir the whole thing up? Posession is 9/10ths of the law; and the will of the islanders is paramount, but Argentine pride is at stake and the appointment of an heir to the British throne to a military task in the region is needlessly adding insult to injury.
Unlike our royals (Bush, Perry, Romney, etc) British Royality actually serves not only in the military but in dangerous deployments.
I love how some people twist a term to fit their agenda. "Military task"? It's search and rescue piloting a rescue helicopter. What our Coast Guard does...you know...save innocent lives at sea. Any sane entity, not seeking to stir up trouble, would welcome people who can do that unconditionally. The only thing that even hints of a "military task" in this case is that the Prince is serving his country's military, this counts as military duty for him, and the helicopter is owned by the military. (I don't imagine that the Falklands has a very large helicopter production plant there). The only 'outrage' should be how the Prince was able to get such good duty! (Of course we know how!) At any rate, it was the illegal invasion by Argentina that started the 1982 war that killed almost a thousand people, and Britain kicked their @ss, which is what is REALLY rankling the Argentinian's pride. If I had any faith at all in the UN, I would hope they would tell Argentina to go sit in a corner and have a good cry. But I don't. Like you, I think they'll take the wrong side and make things worse.
Don't forget clinton and obama devils son,we wouldn't want anybody to think you're biased now would we?
A couple of articles I read about the search and rescue pilots serving in the Falklans don't think of it as a plum posting. But they all agree with one thing, the experience from flying their has helped them in different assignments, in different parts of the world.
At least the royal family requires their males to serve in the military. Have to give them credit for that.
Hope that both sides find the way to keep peace in the region.
The ironic thing is surely that without the Argentine defeat in the Falklands Conflict of '82 Galtieri might have hung on to power until his death in 2003 and may have been followed by another military dictator.
Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner was democratically elected and the Argentine return to democracy was hastened by the Falklands defeat.
By the way, who was living in Argentina before the Spanish came along? Has anybody ever asked whether they'd like their territory back?
When things are bad at home, a country's political power always stirs up something outside the country to take the minds of the people off domestic problems.
As I understand the Islanders chose to remain British subjects so they should have the right of protection by the UK. As Argentina invaded the Falklands before they can't really complain about the UK having a military presence there, being one ship or 10 ships.
With regard to price William, I salute him, his courage and service to his country. His service will earn respect for the Royal Family.
As for Argentina, maybe they should just be patient because when the next budged cuts hit the UK maybe they will "decommission" the Falklands.
This is very impressive the amount of publicity Argentina is generating about this.
If they started being nice to the Falkland Islanders instead of threatening them maybe they would vote to join them as that would be self determination as enshrined in the UN charter and the UK government has public ally stated they would respect the outcome of the vote.
Tim,
This is very impressive the amount of publicity Argentina is generating about this.
That's all they want at this point. They have no ability at all to do anything militarily. But they did recently get one of the countless south american organizations to sign something not allowing the ships from the Malvinas to use their ports. Maybe they're watching the Palestinian/Israeli conflict and learning from them.
I think that's a little disrespectful to the Palestinian / Israeli conflict. This is a land grab pure and simple there are no native Argentinian's that the UK are subjugating. Unless your meaning the Argentinians are the Israeli's and the Falkland Islanders are the Palestinian's, trying to hold on to their small piece of land while being bullied by the Argentinians, that I can agree with you on.
Actually the only native population that's being subjugated is the native South American's that the current day Argentinians all but wiped out to create their Spanish colony.
I think my point was that when you have no military ability to do much, ie. Palestinians, one available option in a conflict is to try to get as much international publicity as possible. Wasn't even touching the issue of populations being subjugated. So I don't see any disrespect at all in my statement. Perhaps it could have been worded better to have been more clear.
Having visited Peru I would agree with your last statement. There's a plaque in the main plaza of Cusco commemorating the 500 years of struggle and the lives lost in the resistance. The struggle is still going on, it seems. While I was there I witnessed quite a few street demonstrations of the indigenous people and had to cut from our trip a visit to the Amazon because some of the tribes killed about 30 police over oil and mineral exploitation of their lands..........with arrows and spears, by the way.
I don't think the Malvinas have or even have had any indigenous population, so there are no indigenous people being subjugated there. People from the mainland had obviously used the islands because remains of canoes have been found, but no evidence of villages.
You'd think the Argies would leave this one alone...
Goes to show you how "romantic" those "Italo-Spaniards" can be...
Also, nothing like a politician to offer up SOMEONE ELSE'S life....is the lady-president really proposing this?
I know Americans are geographically challenged at the best of times, but look at the map. How close are the islands to Argentina versus Britain ? Simple enough for you ?
Hawaii, anyone? After all, those islands are closer to Japan than the US.
Gee. Does that mean we can claim Cuba and the Bahamas, and give up Guam and the Trust Territories?
The Falklands are singing "Don't cry for me Argentina" and saying GTFO.
Maybe South America is using this issue to rally round?
If they are they need a hell of a lot better navy than what they collectively possess.
I read that Brazil is building two nuclear subs. South America is becoming a self-aware entity slowly but surely instead of a playground full of squabbling brats, but they have a long long way to go. Right now there is Chavez beating his chest still crying the "yankee emperialist go home" song, and Peru, Chile, and Bolivia are still locked in an argument that goes back to their last war, kinda like north and south Korea where periodically troops come up to the borders. But underneath all that hoopla there is a slow and steady unification going on, especially in efforts to create an infrastructure linking all the countries. But like I said, they have a long long way to go. But they will get there.
Bottom line people, they're drilling offshore. Methinks that's the real prize...
Honestly, it's not about oil... there are two claims actually. The first one is military strategy: whoever control the islands controls the passageway between the Atlantic and the Pacific (think for a moment that if you take Panama off the map, where are going to go to cross from one ocean to the other?). The second claim: By having a possession in those islands (which actually encompass the Falklands/Malvinas, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands) they can lay claim to a piece of Antarctica...
The only time that Argentina has ruled the Falkland Islands was for a couple of months in 1982. The Argentine claim is based on a claim by the United Provinces of the River Plate from 180 years ago. Argentina also claims a large chunk of Antarctica and other islands. Wikipedia has a chart showing permanence of settlements in the Falkland Islands. Argentina's claim is bogus.
Dale, there was a settlement in the early 1820s... which was expelled by the Americans and then the Brits took the islands in 1833... you use wikipedia to defend your assertions??? HAHAHA!!!! You're funny...
Yes the islanders identify as British because they are!
Argentina is after the oil is right on target.
They never laid claim, never had a case to lay claim and the islands are British territory.
Comparing the Falkland and the Vietnam war is just plain ignorant and nothing short of disrespect to the 53,000 service people who died for Johnson and his war machine.
Argentina should be glad that the UK didn't widen the conflict to the mainland last time. The next time they may not be so fortunate.
PFS, doubt very much that would have happened. For the Brits to approach or indeed threaten the mainland would have exposed UK forces to a still very capable Argentinian air force. No go...
Aussie,
Plus there would be nothing more capable of uniting the whole of south america than a foreign invasion of any of their countries.
True enough Plotinus, true enough...
Political: They tried that twice in 1806 and 1807. There are two British Regiments that actually march without flags, for the flags are in display in Buenos Aires after being captured.
I was thinking more along the lines of Tomahawk missiles actually.
Political: They have more interests than you think. 80% of the beef imported by the UK through the Hilton quota with the EU comes from...? Yeah, the enemy. There are more economic interests than the circus of both going at each other's throat. War or no war, they both kept doing business as usual after the war.