It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

CIA planned to return Falklands to Argentina

page: 1
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:24 AM
link   


We were so focus in Washington yesterday, we didn't pay attention to this one. I still remember those days, I was in South America and one thing I clearly recall is how disappointed was most the people there about USA, which was expected to support Argentina for different reasons. After all these years, it seems now they were not far from an alternative end to this story.



www.cia.gov...


The population of the Falklands Islands could have been relocated to Scotland under a secret CIA plan, it has been revealed. United States planned to step in and hand the Islands to Argentina following the 1982 invasion, according to briefings rescued from the trove of 12 million documents published by the CIA on its website and discovered by the British media.
 The remarkable memo - titled “Solution to the Falkland Islands crisis” - was written by Chairman of the US National Intelligence Council Henry Rowen and addressed to Paul Wolfowitz, a Department of State advisor to president Ronald Reagan.
Early indications by the CIA pointed to Britain 'underestimating' the Argentine military in a war which was fought 8,000 miles away from London. He adds it is 'likely that many residents will find this sufficient inducement to relocate to some other area, perhaps in Scotland or elsewhere where conditions may be similar to the Falkland Islands'.
Rowen writes: “For a period of three years the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands will be given a chance to consider whether they wish to remain on the Falkland Islands or whether they wish to relocate to an area of British

en.mercopress.com...

edit on 21-1-2017 by Trueman because: (no reason given)

edit on 21-1-2017 by Trueman because: (no reason given)




posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

There was / is one big problem with this - the Falkland Islanders themselves wish to remain a British Overseas Territory and the British public are almost 100% supportive of the islanders.

It would be political suicide for any British politician or political party to accede to any transferal of sovereignty either then or in the foreseeable future.

Its completely irrelevant what the CIA /USA desire(d), they have no say in the matter whatsoever.

If Trump is to be believed this meddling will be a thing of the past.....we'll wait and see about that.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:47 AM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

citation required for premise # 3 :

" an ultimate turnover of the islands to argentine sovereignty as the british are said to be prepared and have been prepared for some time to do "

that sir // madame is utter bollox



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 08:55 AM
link   

originally posted by: Freeborn
a reply to: Trueman

There was / is one big problem with this - the Falkland Islanders themselves wish to remain a British Overseas Territory and the British public are almost 100% supportive of the islanders.



Yes, I agree. However, the document doesn't have any consideration for the Falkland Islanders opinion.


+1 more 
posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:32 AM
link   
Bloody Americans.



It was none of your #ing buisness.

Return half the pacific , guantainimo and puerto rico before you point your fingers



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:52 AM
link   
a reply to: crazyewok

I don't think Puerto Rico wants that.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 09:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Trueman


Yes, I agree. However, the document doesn't have any consideration for the Falkland Islanders opinion.





And what about the consideration for UK's opinion?

The UK went to war over the Falkland Islands.

The CIA has exceeded their remit in this instance.
edit on 21-1-2017 by eletheia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:22 AM
link   
The uk spanked the argies the first time and I definitely don't think they want to give up their conquered territory. I'd tell the cia to gtfo.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:30 AM
link   
ok - a more measured response - no i has had time to dig into the OP sources

i was personally unaware of this - till this thread - but hey i didnt get told a lot of stuff - BUT - this " plan " - nor the HMG response to it was not disclosed in 2012 [ 30 year rule ] - when a lot of stuff did come out [ previously classified falkl;ands ]

so it begs the question - how far did this " plan " go ???

i cannot see any " distribution schedule " for this document - beyond the fact that it was addressed to one man

so - did anyone else actually see it - or was it so ludicous that it went in file 13 ?



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:33 AM
link   
This was just 1 possible solution that the CIA came up with? if that`s so then it`s good that Reagan said no to this.

#4 seems to make no sense at all


adequate protection of the culture and political preferences of the British residents of the Falkland islands in a human and indeed generous fashion.


If the political preferences of the British residents in the Falkland islands is to remain under British authority then how can their political preferences possibly be protected in a generous fashion if their land is given to argentina?

The most inhuman and ungenerous way to treat people`s political preferences is to give their land to another country.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Tardacus because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:37 AM
link   
a reply to: Trueman

Make NO mistake about it we would still have gone to take back our island's from the Argentinian invasion regardless of what the US had to say about it, we are the US closest ally, they have bases in our territory's including other island's and we would most certainly have regarded this as a knife in the back.

The CIA operative that penned that memo, well it would be interesting to see his career path following that.

Oh and if the over stretched British task force had been beaten back which was never going to happen because we were in it for a fight then we would simply have assembled another or made a direct bombing on the Argentine Naval, Air and Army facility's within south America itself, we had plenty of SAS asset's inside Argentina just waiting for the order and if you know anything about the Argentinian soldiers they were mostly kid's, conscripted and often not even properly equipped, Galtieri only launched his invasion as a last ditch attempt to hold onto power within Argentina as he believed it would boost his popularity and stave off the Anti military government sentiment which was finally rising to boiling point within the nation so it was a ruse and a distraction.

You see it is like this.

The Falkland Island's were NEVER Argentinian territory, Argentina is a Colonial country which only gained it's independence after Spain had already lost the Islands to the French and we bought then from the French, the only occupant's prior to the British settler's were some Portuguese Whalers whom only lived there for the whaling and not as a colony of Portugal which had never placed any claim upon the Island's.

A lot of innocent kid's died in that short war on both side's, it was a needless political stunt.

Today claiming ownership of the Falkland's is a matter of National pride for the Argentinian's and they teach there children that WE are the invader's, that they are there island's but in fact they never ever were there island's.

Oh and there are probably a lot of former British service personel whom would like to get there hand's around that particular CIA operative's throat.

edit on 21-1-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:44 AM
link   

originally posted by: eletheia

originally posted by: Trueman


Yes, I agree. However, the document doesn't have any consideration for the Falkland Islanders opinion.





And what about the consideration for UK's opinion?

The UK went to war over the Falkland Islands.

The CIA has exceeded their remit in this instance.


Well, in those days people down in South America used to say that USA wouldn't want another country to gain control in our continent. Sort of Monroe Doctrine.


The Monroe Doctrine was a U.S. foreign policy regarding European countries in 1823. It stated that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention.


en.wikipedia.org...
edit on 21-1-2017 by Trueman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 10:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
ok - a more measured response - no i has had time to dig into the OP sources

i was personally unaware of this - till this thread - but hey i didnt get told a lot of stuff - BUT - this " plan " - nor the HMG response to it was not disclosed in 2012 [ 30 year rule ] - when a lot of stuff did come out [ previously classified falkl;ands ]

so it begs the question - how far did this " plan " go ???

i cannot see any " distribution schedule " for this document - beyond the fact that it was addressed to one man

so - did anyone else actually see it - or was it so ludicous that it went in file 13 ?


No need to be worry for now. Kerry had the last words about Monroe Doctrine not too long ago.

President Barack Obama's Secretary of State John Kerry told the Organization of American States in November 2013 that "era of the Monroe Doctrine is over."[41] Several commentators have noted that Kerry's call for a mutual partnership with the other countries in the Americas is more in keeping with Monroe's intentions than the policies enacted after his death.[42]

en.wikipedia.org...
www.slate.com...

Of course, we have a different government since yesterday, but I don't think the Falklands are a priority now. Maybe in the future, in a war for natural resources, this could be a topic.
edit on 21-1-2017 by Trueman because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:08 AM
link   
What? Lol..



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:24 AM
link   

originally posted by: crazyewok
Bloody Americans.



It was none of your #ing buisness.

Return half the pacific , guantainimo and puerto rico before you point your fingers



+1 sir....thankfully Reagan said no and give dem der sidewinders.......Still one of the most simulated naval battles of the modern era....

Viffing became the new 'cool' word.....
edit on 21-1-2017 by edsinger because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:25 AM
link   
a reply to: Slickinfinity



....and I definitely don't think they want to give up their conquered territory.


It has nothing to do with not wanting to relinquish 'conquered territory' and everything to do with 'The Right to Self-Determination'.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
a reply to: ignorant_ape

Thatcher's 1981 Defence Review had recommended sweeping cuts to the UK's military.
If implemented the Royal Navy would have been the most drastically affected.

It is also thought that Thatcher's government had privately indicated that they may have considered Joint Sovereignty of The Falklands.

These two factors convinced the military junta in control of Argentina that the UK would not respond to any attempt to take the islands.

Thatcher was in deep trouble in the UK, the public seemed to have little or no faith in her and her policies and it was generally accepted that she would lose the next General Election.

In response to the publics outrage at Argentina's invasion of the islands Thatcher did a remarkable U-turn and the rest as they say is history.



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 12:02 PM
link   
a reply to: Freeborn

Absolutely accurate.

Side note the failed eight man SAS mission to attack an Exocet base was a badly planned and executed disaster but it was the only asset we had in Argentina of that I am certain.
edit on 21-1-2017 by LABTECH767 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:10 PM
link   
US policy to the Falklands is hostile to the British. It was in 1982 and remains the case today. The US call it “neutrality”, but that’s a way of saying they don’t want to take sides and offend Argentina. They see the Falklands as contravening of their self-declared Monroe Doctrine 1823.

It is well documented that the US tried to “calm things down” after the Argentinean invasion, on the basis that permanent possession would revert to Argentina if the British could be persuaded to just keep talking. The depth of US “neutrality” was demonstrated by the US Secretary of State’s actions at the time (Alexander Haig), who was clearly supportive of Argentina, including conspiring to pass British military plans to the Argentines.

Anyway, at the end of the day, who gives a toss what the US think? History is on the side of the British, regardless of Argentinean historical revisionism.

An timeline of the Falklands



posted on Jan, 21 2017 @ 02:29 PM
link   
a reply to: paraphi

Good post. I am in America but I think Argentinian invasion of the Falklands was wrong.




top topics



 
12
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join