Argentina accused of plotting Falklands blockade

It is simply unreal just how people can be for Argentina's claim to the Falklands. These same people are against Aghanistan and Iraq wars, are against Israel occupation of Palestine but then FOR Argentina taking over an island whose inhabitants have ALL voiced the desire to stay under British control and never to be part of Argentina. As already said, Argentina didn't even exist when the Falklands, which was just an empty rocky island, become under British control. Unreal!
It would be disgusting for Britain to hand over Falklands to the Argentinians against the wishes of the inhabitants, if the Falklanders want independence, they will get it as with every other ex-colony that has ever voiced a want of independence. Argentina is a mess, inflation is estimated at around 25%, they have this nationalist rhetoric that restricts foreign investment and as such economic growth. Crime is rapidly rising in line with star gazing 30% and increasing poverty level. The country is a mess and trying to rally together some form of common enemy, which they can always do with the Falklands, to distract the masses from the degredation before their eyes.
Nothing will happen, if Argentina kicked off, they would be wiped out. Loss of Falklands would create protests beyond belief in Britain, especially as we didn't think twice to get involved in pointless conflicts such as Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. However, the chances of the entire Argentinian military defeating Britian in actual war is less than the chance of me winning the lottery. One of the lowest spenders in South America on defence against the 4th highest in the world is a no brainer, it will be a repeat of the 80's and may have even heavier cost on Argentina's mess of a country. Go on Argentina, bark the usual every ten year rhetoric, it will boost votes but that's all it will do.

reply to post by SecretFace

A repeat of the 80's? I doubt that as in the 80's Argentina came within a whisker of winning thanks in part to Reagan having them given some Exocet missiles and 13 hits on Brit ship but bombs did not explode. This after the coward Brits had sunk the Argentine light cruiser Belgrano which was outside the war zone

www.naval-history.net...

reply to post by oghamxx


You are not correct.

Reagan quietly supported the UK. The RN was provided with an advance batch of AIM-9L sidewinders which were much better than what the argentines had. Prior to the war they were in US forces use only.

The exocets were sold to Argentina by France prior to the conflict. They weren't sold any during and France withheld delivery of some to Peru during the conflict to prevent them being forwarded to argentina.

The bombs not exploding were due to inadequate time to arm due to being dropped from too low.

Originally posted by oghamxx
reply to post by SecretFace

 

A repeat of the 80's? I doubt that as in the 80's Argentina came within a whisker of winning thanks in part to Reagan having them given some Exocet missiles and 13 hits on Brit ship but bombs did not explode. This after the coward Brits had sunk the Argentine light cruiser Belgrano which was outside the war zone

www.naval-history.net...

the belgrano was on its way to a rendezvous inside the area of conflict so was a Legit Target

reply to post by justwokeup

My source was newspaper articles published no less when the Queen was visiting the US about 1990 or 91 was that Reagan was behind the Exocet transfer (from some Latin American country?) because he did not want the Brits to have an easy victory.

A bit of early history

French and British Settlement - The first settlement was established in 1764 at Port Louis in Berkeley Sound by the French under Antoine de Bougainville, who claimed the colony in the name of the King of France, a step which brought strong protests from allied Spain. Next year British Captain John Byron arrived to survey the north coast, went ashore on Saunders Island off West Falkland and in turn claimed the islands for Britain, naming Port Egmont before sailing away. Captain John McBride followed him there in 1766 to set up a permanent colony, and that same year tried to eject the French from Port Louis, but unknown to both of them, de Bougainville had already sold out to Spain.

Spanish Colony - De Bougainville formally handed over the French colony in 1767 and Port Louis was renamed Puerto Soledad. A Spanish governor was appointed under the Captain-General of mainland Buenos Aires, but both the British on West Falkland and Spanish on East Falkland carried on until 1769 when each tried to get the other to leave. In 1770, on orders from Buenos Aires, five Spanish ships with 1,400 troops arrived and the small marine garrison at Port Egmont was forced to leave in a move which nearly led to war between the two countries. After intensive negotiations Spain agreed in 1771 to Britain returning to Port Egmont, but reserved the right to sovereignty. She also claimed Britain had secretly agreed to pull out and indeed the settlement was abandoned three years later in 1774. Until the early 19th century, the Falklands remained the Spanish colony of Islas Malvinas.

Argentine Claim and Possession - Following independence from Spain in 1816, the future state of Argentina laid claim to the previous colonial territories, and in 1820 sent a frigate to take possession of the Falklands. In 1826, Louis Vernet of French origin established himself and a number of colonists at Puerto Soledad to develop fishing, farming and trade, and as governor from 1828 attempted to control the widespread sealing. Waking up to developments, Britain's consul general in Buenos Aires protested in 1829 against the appointment of a governor and re-asserted old claims to sovereignty.

United States and British Involvement - In 1831, after arresting American sealers accused of poaching, Louis Vernet sailed in one of them for Buenos Aires where the captain was to stand trial. In reprisal, the US warship "Lexington" arrived off Puerto Soledad, destroyed the fortifications, arrested some of the people and declared the islands free of government before sailing away. Argentina and the United States argued furiously over each other's high-handed behaviour, and next year a new governor was appointed but then murdered by rebellious colonists. As Argentine forces attempted to restore order, Royal Navy warships "Clio" and "Tyne" under the command of Captain Onslow arrived in early 1833, forced them to leave and claimed the Falklands for Britain. Argentina protested strongly, but the British Government maintained that all rights to sovereignty were retained during the 1770 negotiations with Spain.

British Colonisation - Britain later started to settle the islands and formally declared a colonial administration in 1842, although Argentina continued to press her claim and from the 1960's on, with increasing vigour. Stanley was established in 1845. By this time, Britain's right to ownership rested mainly on her peaceful and continuous possession over a long period of time, and when serious negotiations began, they became dominated by the islander's desire to remain British.

Argentine Claims - After a period of Argentine lobbying, the United Nations passed Resolution 2065 in 1965 specifying the Falklands/Malvinas as a colonial problem, and calling on Britain and Argentina to find a peaceful solution. Talks continued on and off for the next seventeen years under both British Labour and Conservative Governments. Britain initially appeared flexible over the question of sovereignty, and by 1971 the Argentines were agreeing to concentrate on economic development and support, but thereafter, both side's position hardened. The Argentines would accept nothing less than full sovereignty and in late 1980 the islanders rejected the one remaining solution of lease-back for a fixed period. On the road to war, Argentina set up a scientific base on Southern Thule in the South Sandwich Islands in 1976 and stayed put, and in 1982 her forces found themselves about to land on South Georgia and to invade and hold the Falklands themselves.

reply to post by Maxatoria

One of several arguments I have heard. Then why do nations even bother to declare a war zone!

reply to post by Flavian


Thanks Flavian for you kindly answer!

Again sorry if my English is bad.

To the point of your question, The "Kirchneristas" had an almost absolute monopoly of the information, I mean, almost all of the news channels and newspapers are paid by them, and if someone dare to say something different and publish it for sure will get persecuted from all the tv programs paid by the Kirchners, or they will begin to investigate from the government sectors like the ANSES (Argentine social insurance system), AFIP (Federal Administration of Public Revenue) or the SIDE (Secretariat of Intelligence, who can intervene your phone among other things and sell your personal info to gossip tv programs or newspapers)

So, the only thing we hear here about the oil from Malvinas was that "los ingleses" just "wanted to take EVERYTHING, first they come for our islands and now they want all the oil too, and that Cristina is not going to let that happen, but ONLY via diplomatic way and NEVER going to war because we are a democratic country..." and all those things.

Matt

reply to post by Freeborn


Thanks for what you said Freeborn! great words!

Yes, whe have here worst thing to worry about, like go out from your home to buy something at the market and not get killed for your shoes or your phone.

So I hope (and a lot of people too) that our president once at least do something good and let the islands go, because like I already said, whe have worst problem to solve like people that doesn't even have water in their homes, or electricity and the only thing she do is paid 3 millions pesos (something like 638.300 USD) to subsidize the AFA (Argentine Soccer Association), 500 millions (100 millions USD) to the TC (Turismo Carretera, a popular touring car racing series here) or go to war with the UK.

Originally posted by ludwigvonmises003
The liberation of Falklands,Scotland and Ireland from English oppression is at hand.

Oh you are a genius sir, you forgot to mention Wales as well, never mind sweetheart, you keep taking them pills :-) (idiot) the Falklands are ours, Never have been Argentinian, go a research history, if you can read that is.

reply to post by N1thNa1ath


N1thNa1ath It's hard to discuss in Spanish with a Kirchnerista so imagine how difficult it must be in English.

All I can say is the only two thing that this government do right is the bonus for the retired people and the gay marriage.

"we have 6.3% of unemployed people" and you believe that lies? your REALLY believe the INDEC stats? you must be crazy man!

"The basic salary is around 1000 u$s dollars" Where you work? wow! I want to work with you! because the last thing I know was that the minimum salary is "US$545" (sure, if you aren't not working in black like a lot of people that get paid LOWER)

"We have free University education for everyone in our country" yes but not because of Cristina! we have the best education system in Latino America because the people that work for 2 pesos the hour and have love and passion for their profession as a teacher.

"The women that are pregnant and are alone perceive a social bonus as the children that are having economic problems in their families" Yes, but you forget to say that WE (the middle class) pay for all of this, we pay the fathers to have sex, have childrens and stay in their homes doing NOTHING.

And to finish, I'm not in "other political party", I don't read Clarín and don't see TN I can assure you! I just don't like a person that gives a speech challenging the society to be more solidary with the poor while having a solid gold watch in the hand!

This country is going to be really democratic when our president get paid the same as a doctor, a policeman or a teacher, not the millions and the "vacations" that she takes, our Empress of Underdevelopment.

Anyways the problem is not with you, it's with the government, It's nice to see some Argentinian in this forum

islanders are British citizens and we have the right to defend them from any aggression. Argentina would have no internationally support in the event of an attack and would face heavy penalties from NATO and British Forces (Although, we wouldn't need it as we have demonstrated in the past.) would have potential support from ISAF.

Originally posted by N1thNa1ath
reply to post by Peruvianmonk

 

Are you #ing serious???
Now we argentinians are the conquerorps??? Wtf the world has turn upside down!!
They the maggot of cameron to give their people what they deserve instead of focusing in an island far away just to make brittish forget the troubles in which they are now economically speaking

He even dare to call Argentina a colonization force and the poor uneducated people in britain believe him.

Just to make people focus in other things but their own problems, give your own people a better wayt of living Mr. Cameron and forget about Argentinians!!

this is obviously an operation as the ones being held in the middle east to make people forget their own economic problems and get an exterior enemy in which to focus.

poor people in Britain

We Know all about our own economic problems, they are a mess, I've never agreed with the war in Iraq nor Afgahnistan, like a lot of people, and what you acuse our gov of doing, distracting us by sabre rattling with an old adversary, is exactly what the Argentinian President is doing, Argentina, thanks to your useless government is a mess, and in order to stir up some sort of Nationalist belief, she is spouting nonsense rhetoric towards us evil Brits. We didn't invade those islands and force upon it's inhabitants a Military Junta, Argentina did. Argentina is the product of an equally greedy Empire, The Spanish. The Islands are ours, they always have been and until the people there to decide, through a democratic process, to become something else, whether it be Argentinian, Martian, lesbian, independent, whatever, they will remain British, it doesn't get much simpler than that. It's a point of principle. Argentina and the UK could be good friends, we have many similar interests, and apart from the row over the Falklands, we have a shared history, it's not like they weren't offered a fair deal in Oil exploration,which would have helped with economic growth in Argentina.

Cameron is a moron and is going about it a typical war mongering way, as his popularity is fading and one of the government ministers has had to resign due to some scandal or other, but the Argentinian government are just as equally moronic to believe that it's own people care more about the sovereinty of a group of disputed Islands, than the social and economic problems in it's own country. Peace Brother :-)

When is the next "election" in Argentina. From what I hear Kirshner is so unpopular that is she were to win again there would be "another" revolution.

reply to post by Shminkee Pinkee

It appears your history differs a bit from mine. (History is written by the victors)
1764 French settlement
1765 British claim
1766 British settlement along with French
1767 France sells to Spain
1770 Spain forces Brits to leave
1771 Spain allows Brits to return while reserving sovereignty
1774 Brits abandon islands
1816 Argentine claim following independence from Spain
1820 Argentine possession
1829 Brits claim sovereignty
1831 US gunboat diplomacy and declare islands ungoverned
1833 RN warships arrive and force out Argentines

For much of the 20th century were not the Falklands such an expensive welfare state that the government offered to resettle the inhabitants anywhere in the empire and give or sell the islands to Argentina?. Few or no takers!

Will Argentina go to war this round? In my opinion No way.

Was there not a book in the past few years authored by the Brit diplomat doing a shuttle trying to reach a settlement prior to the war? As I recall Argentina agreed to all terms but Thatcher upped them. Again they agreed and she upped them again. It was too late. In my opinion that bitch wanted that war. How would history have treated her had the Brits lost!

By the way, off topic but what do you think of the many Brits I have met who claim you still would have won WW2 had the USA never gotten involved. Do they teach that in your schools? They do not here.

Churchill was reported to be near tears when Roosevelt named the terms for us to enter which included 99 years of unlimited access to all Brit harbors worldwide. Do they teach those terms in your schools? They do not here.

reply to post by JakiusFogg


They just had one in October 2011. She got 54 percent, second place 17 percent.

reply to post by oghamxx


Dude don't patronise me I know all of what you say, but the the Islands are ours, we have had settlers there the longest, (if you want to nit pick,) and they will stay ours until the Islanders themselves say otherwise, It's a point of principle. Whats has world war 2 got to do with anything? We know how valuable the USA was to us, they don't let us forget it :-)

News today - The MOD is sending down a Trafalgar class nuclear powered submarine to the South Atlantic.

Originally posted by oghamxx
Churchill was reported to be near tears when Roosevelt named the terms for us to enter which included 99 years of unlimited access to all Brit harbors worldwide. Do they teach those terms in your schools? They do not here.

I think you mean those 99-year leases on British naval bases in the Western hemisphere. I don't think that any of them are still being used.

reply to post by AngryCymraeg

There was a publicly known deal approved by Congress of the lend leas variety but the private terms with Churchill were brutal.for the Uk and sweet for the US but conditioned on our entering the war. The Tripartite Treaty between Germany, Italy and Japan said war with any one was war with all. Pearl; Harbor was the bait.

www.ourdocuments.gov...

In July 1940, after Britain had sustained the loss of 11 destroyers to the German Navy over a 10-day period, newly elected British Prime Minister Winston Churchill requested help from President Roosevelt. Roosevelt responded by exchanging 50 destroyers for 99-year leases on British bases in the Caribbean and Newfoundland. As a result, a major foreign policy debate erupted over whether the United States should aid Great Britain or maintain strict neutrality.

reply to post by oghamxx


99 year leases on bases in Newfoundland and the Carribbean is hardly worldwide, unless you count the later US stitch-up over Diego Garcia.