Posted on 04/02/2008 10:29:37 PM PDT by fishhound
BUENOS AIRES (AFP) - Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands, which remain in British hands after the 1982 war between the two countries, is "inalienable," President Cristina Kirchner said Wednesday.
"The sovereign claim to the Malvinas Islands is inalienable," she said in a speech marking the 26th anniversary of Argentina's ill-fated invasion of the islands, located 480 kilometers (300 miles) off shore.
The April 2, 1982 invasion prompted then British prime minister Margaret Thatcher to deploy naval forces to retake the Falklands, known as the Malvinas in Spanish.
The short, bloody conflict led to Argentina's surrender on June 14, 1982 after the death of 649 Argentines and 255 Britons.
Historians saw the invasion as an attempt by Argentina's ruling military junta, which was then in power, to divert attention away from domestic problems.
In her speech Kirchner called for Argentina to strengthen its representation in international bodies to denounce "this shameful colonial enclave in the 21st century."
(Excerpt) Read more at news.yahoo.com ...
Major b-slap on the way....stay tuned. Unless England has completely forgotten who they(UK) are.
They do.
There’s not another brit politician alive today with the balls that Maggie has.
Kirchner is commie-lite compared to her buds Chavez and Ortega, plus the little piss-ants Morales and Correa.
Time for the Brits to get some backbone and show the flag.
Aw jeez...
When Obama pulls out of Iraq next year, the world will be inflamed with these land grabs.
How about a joint naval exercise, with one portion taking place off the Venezuelan coast and the oter taking place off the Argentine coast?
Yeah, things are going so well. I forgot.
“The comments came as Kirchner faces her own woes, battling against farmers who have barricaded roads in a protest against a stiff tax hike on soybean exports.
The conflict has created shortages of meat and other staples in Buenos Aires and elsewhere, and tested the social fabric, with pro- and anti-government supporters holding dueling rallies.”
I think she is in over her head. Distraction from domestic problems. Thats how and why the generals pushed for the Falklands years ago I think.
But liberals do ignore history.
Well, so far, Kirchner is the most attractive, and least dangerous, of the leftist potentates....
“Che vos!” [Hey, you!]
OK, you’ve made your little anniversary speech. Cute. Now quit worrying about unimportant matters and start running the country.
p.s. Try to lay off on the “stealing the country blind” stuff while you’re at it.
Oh yeah, things are always black or white. I forgot.
Unfortunately, the Iron Lady is no longer in power in Britain.
The man in charge there now is about as threatening as a wet noodle.
I remember that as the weirdest little war of my lifetime. Just what the Argentine Junta had been smoking then, I have no idea, but it must have been some strong stuff.
If there was a single mistake they DIDN’T make, I can’t imagine what it would be. By every indicator I could think of, the Argentines should have been able to not only hold onto the Falklands, they should have been able to keep the Brits so far away they could not have attempted a counter invasion.
Weird... just plain weird.
Argentina has no legal claim on the islands except a papal bull from the 1820’s.
Britain between 1945 and 1982 offered to take the issue of ownership to international arbritation TWELVE times.
Argentina refused every time...and has continued to do so.
Sorry, I’ve just had my fill of people who expect microwave burrito warfare. The fact that you’re reading major strategic implications into some skirt-wearing thug coveting a couple of largely worthless islands shows me that you’re pretty clueless, as does the fact that you think things are going badly when even a green Iraqi division that was activated three months early can kick Sadr’s butt and the rest of the country is safer than central Milwaukee was last summer.
Because you can't disract your population with a problem that no longer exists.
If he pulls out he will have been there visiting. This election is Ebenezer McGeezer’s to lose.
Well, move on them then.
Rumor has it that Maggie Thatcher remarked at the time that Cordoba (Argentina’s 2nd largest city) might simply “disappear” should the Brits feel things were going poorly.
Thanks for the history lesson.
Agreed. The british navy will make Argentina it’s bitch yet again. Funny how they never learn.
That would have been great to read in a newspaper back then! lol
The story was released a few years later. A Royal Navy Ballistic Missile sub was nearby (relatively speaking.) This was one of the greatest bluffs of the war.
Interesting if Chavez tries to help her.
“If there was a single mistake they DIDN’T make, I can’t imagine what it would be. By every indicator I could think of, the Argentines should have been able to not only hold onto the Falklands, they should have been able to keep the Brits so far away they could not have attempted a counter invasion.”
We made enough mistakes: a half decent military presence to deter them could have saved 255 British lives and meant our forces wouldn’t have had to kill over 600 of them...
I often wonder where the FREE world will ever find such leaders again.
Not at all. Maggie had big brass ones. God love her.
The residents of the Falklands are Britsh citizens and want to stay that way.
Also and this is decisive:
Oil billions beckon Falkland Islands
There may or may not be that much oil in or around the Falkland Islands, but the UK is doubly motivated to maintain control.
Kirchner is just beating the drum to distract from her own troubles.
I doubt if we'll ever see such resolve again in our lifetime.
“Oil billions beckon Falkland Islands”
I had heard about the this around a week ago and the first thought that crossed my mind was that Argentina would reassert their claim on the islands.
The estimate of recoverable reserves I read was around 70 billion barrels of oil which represents a huge financial windfall, one that Argentina could desperately use.
“Argentina has no legal claim on the islands except a papal bull from the 1820’s.
Britain between 1945 and 1982 offered to take the issue of ownership to international arbritation TWELVE times.
Argentina refused every time...and has continued to do so.”
I believe since 1982 there has been collaboration between the 2 countries in carrying out oil exploration and which they’ve since withdrawn from. There are now strong indications of large oil reserves...bit of a pisser...for them.
Anyway I look at it, we’ve offered them far more than we’re morally or legally obligated to.
BTW I believe the FI are far better defended than they were 26 years ago so another invasion is unlikely.
They won't get it.
*sigh* The Brits get Maggie.
We get Hillary!™ *sigh*
Including you I guess.
Paging Maggie Thatcher!
If that Brit gang that was taken by Iran is an example, this might turn out to be the world’s biggest slap fight.
That much is true, but I still credit the Argentines for utter boneheadedness. They should have known better than to try and bluff Maggie — and it was a bluff.
The critical factor was their failure to immediately expand the airfield at Port Stanley and move in refueling equipment fuel and armaments. Had they done that, they would have been able to station fixed wing aircraft there and kept the British counter-invasion fleet from even approaching the islands.
The Harriers are good birds, and British pilots definitely proved their mettle during the conflict, but the valor of the Argentine airmen was heroic as well. They scored amazing successes despite the fact that they had to burn their gas close to bingo just to get into the area of operations.
According to an intel weenie I got drunk with years ago, one factor that may have prevented that simple expedient was the inter-service rivalry between the Argentine Navy and Air Forces. The admirals wanted to run the war, but did not want to risk their precious aircraft carrier Veinticinco de Mayo in a head to head contest against the British carriers — especially after the cruiser General Belgrano was sunk.
The Air Force wanted to win the war, but the Admirals were worried about losing face and losing their dominant position on the junta.
Strangely enough, the Argentine Army, historically the strongest of the services, was pretty much sidelined during the conflict. The troops sent to the Falklands were said to be raw draftees with poor equipment and short rations.
Weird. Just plain weird.
Isn’t it a sort of charming though quiet place? Perhaps the Brits should open a R & R spot there for the military and open it up to other forces so that lots of Americans are there at any one time, too.
Sort of puts a damper on any invasion plans to know the U.S., by way of its citizens, would be instantly involved.
I met one of the Argentinean army soldiers in Florida.
He was a business man and told me about trying not to crap his pants when the brits hit them with artillery.
But the thing that started the troops surrender was when they heard the Gurkhas were on their way....
He was a great guy, but he said he had never been as scared as when his position was shelled.
The Argentines simply couldn’t. They had no answer to UK SSNs. Their suface navy, after a brief outing, was restricted to territorial waters. Their aircraft were operating at the limits of their combat radius. It was simply a war of attrition and logistics. In the end it was a close run thing for the UK in terms of logistics. By that time the Argentines were simply worn down and lacked the will to go on.
“Isn’t it a sort of charming though quiet place? Perhaps the Brits should open a R & R spot there for the military and open it up to other forces so that lots of Americans are there at any one time, too.”
Can only go by what I’ve read, but IIRC, cold and wet take on a different dimension so any R&R should be indoors...
The Port Stanley runway expansion for operation of the likes of Super Etendards, Mirage and Daggers wouldn’t have worked either. It would only have meant putting all their eggs in one basket. The Argentines would have still have needed the long range recce to pick up and target the RN fleet with the Super Etendards based on the island.
They couldn’t have maintained and operated all those assets on the islands. Stanley airfield couldn’t have been simply turned into some sort of super base. Think of all the infrastructure to be built just to house and maintain those aircraft? The Argentines had no experience of off base or away base combat operations and especially in those Island winter conditions. What were they going to use to protect said aircraft from the elements? With no portable shelters any advanced combat fleet would simply have withered away in terms of effectiveness.
I pretty much agree, but that was the only thing they could have possibly done that would have given them a chance to resist Britain’s counter-invasion force.
The fact that they didn’t even try says volumes about their preparations and how totally they misread both Maggie and British resolve.
Like I said, it was the weirdest little war of my lifetime.
Don't need them when they just discovered lots of oil in the area.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.