Argentina calls on Britain to refrain from holding military exercises in the Falklands

2010-10-10 06:29:06 GMT+7 (ICT)

BUENOS AIRES (BNO NEWS) -- The Argentine government on Saturday called on Britain to refrain from holding military exercises in the Falkland Islands, said a statement from Argentina's Foreign Ministry.

The Falklands' sovereignty is disputed between Buenos Aires and London, who fought a war in 1982 after the South American country invaded the islands, which Argentina calls the Malvinas.

In the statement, the Foreign Ministry said a formal protest has been sent to the British Embassy, and warned that any military exercise could create an arms race in the region.

"The Foreign Ministry handed over to the British Embassy, in a note to the ambassador, a report on a communication received by the Naval Hydrographic Service, provided by British Forces and dated October 8, announcing military exercises with missiles in the territory of Malvinas," said a statement from the Argentine presidency.

"The Argentine Government reiterates that the Malvinas, Georgias and South Sandwich Islands, part of the Argentine Republic and unlawfully occupied by the United Kingdom, are in dispute, which is recognized by the United Nations and other international organizations," the presidency added.

UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher sent a naval task force in 1982 after Argentina's ruling military junta invaded the Falkland Islands and South Georgia on April 2. After a series of naval battles, Argentina surrendered on June 14.

-- © BNO News All rights reserved 2010-10-10

Argentina should stick to mismanaging its economy and corrupt practices.

Too bad the Baroness isn't healthy, otherwise she'd kick those rude snots in the balls again.

Sounds more like that they are still upset they lost the war

If the islands belong to Britain then I see no reason why Britain cannot hold a training exercise in their waters. The Argentines should keep their noses out of our business and try to sort their crap out. I doubt very much that they would want to back up what they say for fear of getting a beating again.

Let's hope David Cameron has the guts of Margaret Thatcher, should it come to anything!

If the situation were reversed and the Argentineans occupied the Channel Islands or Isles of Scilly for example, we as Brits would all be screaming blue murder.

Geographically I can't see how the British have any right to lay a claim to the Falkland Islands.

If the situation were reversed and the Argentineans occupied the Channel Islands or Isles of Scilly for example, we as Brits would all be screaming blue murder.

Geographically I can't see how the British have any right to lay a claim to the Falkland Islands.

Geography has nothing to do with it. It's a history issue, unfortunately history can be interpreted in so many different ways.

The people who live there (and who turned a bare island into a thriving profitable community) are British citizens and they want to stay that way, just like the people of Gibraltar. In my opinion that's the only thing that matters.(and no, I'm not a Brit!)

If the situation were reversed and the Argentineans occupied the Channel Islands or Isles of Scilly for example, we as Brits would all be screaming blue murder.

Geographically I can't see how the British have any right to lay a claim to the Falkland Islands.

Shit yeah, that would be all out war! But that's because they have no right to be showing off around our way because they have no islands here. But the falklands belong to the UK so I see no reason why we can't practice down there.

It's also good for the Falkland Island folk to see our show of strength as well. As it let's them know we are still there for them.

As a son of the Americas, my feeling is this --

Maybe we can't defend them if these spending cuts on the navy go through. Argies want to get their hands on that recently discovered oil. Badove by the government

Look at a map of Argentina. Brits aren't objective about this. Neither are Argies, I'll grant you, but again, look at a map.

At the time the British took posession, they had been Spanish islands. Prior to that they were French. Geography is nothing to do with it.

At the time the British took posession, they had been Spanish islands. Prior to that they were French. Geography is nothing to do with it.

History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them.

Argentina should stick to mismanaging its economy and corrupt practices.

Too bad the Baroness isn't healthy, otherwise she'd kick those rude snots in the balls again.

Well, Baroness Thatchers (then Mrs Thatcher) "kicking" would not haven been successful without the support of US president Ronald Regan, and defence secretary Caspar Weinberger, who provided Britain during the battle on a large scale with updated hi-tech weaponry which resulted in victory for Britain, and it also resulted in a forthcoming election victory for Mrs Thatcher, an election she would, (according to all opinion polls) otherwise clearly have lost.

Perhaps PM David Cameron has the intention to dismantle the current coalition government in order to bring the Tories 100 % back into No.10. and thus wants to copy Mrs T. and has thus planed the military manoeuvre at the Falklands (8000 miles from the UK) in order to cause renewed diplomatic problems with Argentina, which have indeed now arisen, and could result into a military conflict again.

But the question is ... will the current US President and his defence secretary support Britain in the same way as in 1982. the answer is bound to be negative, moreover, due to Falklands far distance, and Britain's decline in military might, victory will no longer be possible.

Therefore Britain should avoid any more conflicts with Argentina, to begin with cancel the military manoeuvre, and then start negotiating in order to find a final solution to the Falklands problem.

As a son of the Americas, my feeling is this --

Funny the English version has different names, and as a son of the Americas I disagree with your feelings as they aren't mutual. Feelings aren't very practical in matters of law but liberals never seem to understand that.

Argentina should stick to mismanaging its economy and corrupt practices.

Too bad the Baroness isn't healthy, otherwise she'd kick those rude snots in the balls again.

Well, Baroness Thatchers (then Mrs Thatcher) "kicking" would not haven been successful without the support of US president Ronald Regan, and defence secretary Caspar Weinberger, who provided Britain during the battle on a large scale with updated hi-tech weaponry which resulted in victory for Britain, and it also resulted in a forthcoming election victory for Mrs Thatcher, an election she would, (according to all opinion polls) otherwise clearly have lost.

Britain benefited from American assistance but they still would have won the war without. It just would have been more expensive.

At the time the British took posession, they had been Spanish islands. Prior to that they were French. Geography is nothing to do with it.

History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them.

Argentina didn't exist. Buenos Aires was a Spanish colony and Britain was at war with Napoleon's French empire, with whom Spain were allied. The Spanish and French clashed plenty of times with Britain and did attempt invasion.

Sounds more like that they are still upset they lost the war

If the islands belong to Britain then I see no reason why Britain cannot hold a training exercise in their waters. The Argentines should keep their noses out of our business and try to sort their crap out. I doubt very much that they would want to back up what they say for fear of getting a beating again.

Sadly Onut

The UK no longer has the resources to give the Argentinians a good beating again, and in light of the forthcoming defence cuts it would be almost impossible to launch another fleet to take on the Argentinains with all the other current commitments. The Argentinian Government are well aware of this, hence the attempt at slapping the UK in the face with a gauntlet.

Jingthing

As a son of the Americas, my feeling is this --

Followed by the Argentinian Flag and the Falklands is a little offensive, whether you are a son of the Americas or not. I take it that is a son of the North Americas? Tell me just what right do the descendants of white Europeans have to live in North America and claim it as there own? Absolutely no right whatsoever. The nation belongs to the indigenous population, who had the land stolen from them when it was plundered by a systematic display of genocide, rape and imprisonment by the invading forces (white Europeans). You can claim the USA as your own because you took it many centuries ago. Likewise the UK took the Falklands and were the final owners in a series of several. Since that day it has remained British. proximity to Argentinian mainland has nothing to do with it although it is over 250 miles, if proximity was a satisfying criteria then why doesn't the USA claim that Cuba in fact belongs to the USA because it is really close, 90 miles to be accurate? Your history is way off, highlighted by the following little gem.

History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them

Is this 3rd grade history or 10th grade? Can you expand on the British attack of Buenos Aires? And in any case why would a military commander send naval assets 10 000 miles to attack London, knowing they would never get within 1000 miles? But that is an aside, please tell me about the attack on Buenos Aires? I assume you are aware that the UK swore not to attack Argentinian soil, one reason the war was not over quicker, because that prevented the British bombing of Argentinian fighter and bomber aircraft assets that were pulled back to the main land and positioned in Argentinian Airbases. Airbases we could not attack because of the code of conduct we swore to abide by.

It was not the war of the Malvinas, It was the war of the Falklands. I find it disrespectful of those people who burn the stars and stripes, I find it equally disrespectful when you replace the Union flag with that of the Argentinian flag.

At the time the British took posession, they had been Spanish islands. Prior to that they were French. Geography is nothing to do with it.

History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them.

Argentina didn't exist. Buenos Aires was a Spanish colony and Britain was at war with Napoleon's French empire, with whom Spain were allied. The Spanish and French clashed plenty of times with Britain and did attempt invasion.

And the king , queen and kids form the House of Windsor are actually of German blood.

History can be tricky and will not give an answer here what is the right thing.

ps. And The Hand ... it was The Hand of God - La Mano De Dios - no question.

Can you expand on the British attack of Buenos Aires?

The British invasions of the Río de la Plata were a series of unsuccessful British attempts to seize control of the Spanish colonies located around the La Plata Basin in South America (today part of Argentina and Uruguay). The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France.

The invasions occurred in two phases. A detachment from the British Army occupied Buenos Aires for 46 days in 1806 before being expelled. In 1807, a second force occupied Montevideo, remaining for several months, and a third force made a second attempt to take Buenos Aires. After several days of street-fighting against the local militia and Spanish colonial army, in which half of the British forces were killed or wounded, the British were forced to withdraw.

The social effects of the invasions are among the causes of the May Revolution. The criollos, who had so far been denied the most important works, could get political strength in military roles. The successful resistance without military reinforcement from Spain fostered the desire of self-determination. An open cabildo and the Royal Audience of Buenos Aires deposed the viceroy Rafael de Sobremonte and designated instead the popular hero Santiago de Liniers, which was a complete unprecedented action: before that, the viceroy was only subject of the King of Spain himself, and no Spanish American had authority over him.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

Edited October 10, 201015 yr by Jingthing

It was not the war of the Malvinas, It was the war of the Falklands. I find it disrespectful of those people who burn the stars and stripes, I find it equally disrespectful when you replace the Union flag with that of the Argentinian flag.

Many more Argies died in that war than Brits. I am sad anyone died. However, respect is relative. Argentinians are offended to see a map of the Falklands with a UK flag; maps in their country show things they way I did and it would be very bad form there to show things any differently. So there are two sides and historically, this isn't over. If it offends you to see the other side represented, I suggest you have a very thin skin. Not my problem.

You've got a side. Good for you. That doesn't mean other people or other countries have to agree with your bias on the matter. Personally, I would side with the UK on most foreign policy matters, but not this one, and I wasn't thrilled with their historical behavior in Northern Ireland either. No country is perfect.

Edited October 10, 201015 yr by Jingthing

Can you expand on the British attack of Buenos Aires?

The British invasions of the Río de la Plata were a series of unsuccessful British attempts to seize control of the Spanish colonies located around the La Plata Basin in South America (today part of Argentina and Uruguay). The invasions took place between 1806 and 1807, as part of the Napoleonic Wars, when Spain was an ally of France.

The invasions occurred in two phases. A detachment from the British Army occupied Buenos Aires for 46 days in 1806 before being expelled. In 1807, a second force occupied Montevideo, remaining for several months, and a third force made a second attempt to take Buenos Aires. After several days of street-fighting against the local militia and Spanish colonial army, in which half of the British forces were killed or wounded, the British were forced to withdraw.

The social effects of the invasions are among the causes of the May Revolution. The criollos, who had so far been denied the most important works, could get political strength in military roles. The successful resistance without military reinforcement from Spain fostered the desire of self-determination. An open cabildo and the Royal Audience of Buenos Aires deposed the viceroy Rafael de Sobremonte and designated instead the popular hero Santiago de Liniers, which was a complete unprecedented action: before that, the viceroy was only subject of the King of Spain himself, and no Spanish American had authority over him.

http://en.wikipedia....ADo_de_la_Plata

Buenos Aires was part of a Spanish colony, and the Bristish attacks were against the Spanish, nothing to do with Argentina, and nothing to do with the modern day territorial dispute over the Falklands.

Buenos Aires was part of a Spanish colony, and the Bristish attacks were against the Spanish, nothing to do with Argentina, and nothing to do with the modern day territorial dispute over the Falklands.

I said that the British attacked BUENOS AIRES. I didn't mention Argentina. Did you miss that? Argentinian children learn the history and they do indeed have strong feelings about the history of Britain in their region. In that sense, you are wrong, the perfectly understandable nationalism of Argentinians about Las Malvinas does relate in some ways to their history.

To be clear, there are two sides to this conflict and I feel both sides deserve respect. Just because this is an Anglo dominated web forum, doesn't mean the Argentinian perspective doesn't also have value.

Almost three decades on from the confict, the defeat of Argentina still stings the national consciousness as an historic injury which must be redressed. President Fernández de Kirchner of Argentina has made the issue a central plank of her presidency, whipping up long-simmering resentments that have only been compounded by the prospect of a black gold bonanza in the isolated, windswept archipelago

.

http://globeboss.com/news/latin-america-back-argentina-over-falklands/

Edited October 10, 201015 yr by Jingthing

If the situation were reversed and the Argentineans occupied the Channel Islands or Isles of Scilly for example, we as Brits would all be screaming blue murder.

Geographically I can't see how the British have any right to lay a claim to the Falkland Islands.

Theyre a bit further away from Argentina then the Isles of Scilly are to Britain.

The Argentinians have never owned or ruled over the Falklands bar a few years when they set up camp 170 yrs ago.

And most important of all the people of the Falklands do not wish to be colonised by the Argentinians .... something Americans like to ignore in their failed attempts at creating an Empire.

Edited October 10, 201015 yr by Englander

It was not the war of the Malvinas, It was the war of the Falklands. I find it disrespectful of those people who burn the stars and stripes, I find it equally disrespectful when you replace the Union flag with that of the Argentinian flag.

Many more Argies died in that war than Brits. I am sad anyone died. However, respect is relative. Argentinians are offended to see a map of the Falklands with a UK flag; maps in their country show things they way I did and it would be very bad form there to show things any differently. So there are two sides and historically, this isn't over. If it offends you to see the other side represented, I suggest you have a very thin skin. Not my problem.

You've got a side. Good for you. That doesn't mean other people or other countries have to agree with your bias on the matter. Personally, I would side with the UK on most foreign policy matters, but not this one, and I wasn't thrilled with their historical behavior in Northern Ireland either. No country is perfect.

The Falklands were never part of the Republic of Argentina. Argentina first laid claim to The Falklands in the 1820s on the grounds that they had rights of succession from the Spanish, which they did not have. The Brits claimed the Islands in 1765, which was formally acknowledged by the Spanish, it was only some years later when the British Naval presence had to leave that the Spanish crept back in. Argentina was not even in existence until 1816 and not properly until 1853. The Falklands had NEVER belonged to Argentina, but had been owned by Spain. When the Brits learned of what was going on in the Falklands they returned and reminded the now forming nation of Argentina who owned the Islands and the Argentinians left with their tail between their legs. There was never even any Argentinian colony on the Islands. In the 1820's the Argentinians actually laid claim to the Falklands by employing an American named Daniel Jewitt to go there and place an Argentinian flag and claim it on their behalf. No Argentinians went there, and about 10 years later they were all turfed off the Islands by the Brits. So in a few hundred years of history between fighting between the Brits and Spanish, Argentina got an American to lay a claim which lasted a little over 10 years. There is no legitimate claim for the Islands by Argentina, other than proximity, and as already said, it is three times further from the Argentinian mainland than Cuba is from the USA. The Falklands are as Argentinian as Cuba is American.

As for not being thrilled with historical behaviour in NI, you make me laugh. How far back would you like to go? As has all ready been said in my post above, the behaviour of the settlers in the US was not exactly thrilling either. Using your arguments of logic, you have no right to call yourself a US citizen or have any claim to property and resources. 99% of Americans should leave and find somewhere else to live because the land was stolen from the Native population. Or is it convenient to overlook that? You can't have it both ways.

So just why do you believe that the Falkland Islands are Argentinian?

If the situation were reversed and the Argentineans occupied the Channel Islands or Isles of Scilly for example, we as Brits would all be screaming blue murder.

Geographically I can't see how the British have any right to lay a claim to the Falkland Islands.

Theyre a bit further away then the Isles of Scilly from Argentina.

The Argentinians have never owned or ruled over the Falklands bar a few years when they set up camp 170 yrs ago.

And most important of all the people of the Falklands do not wish to be colonised by the Argentinians .... something Americans like to ignore in their failed attempts at creating an Empire.

Argentinians colonizing?!?

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Buenos Aires was part of a Spanish colony, and the Bristish attacks were against the Spanish, nothing to do with Argentina, and nothing to do with the modern day territorial dispute over the Falklands.

I said that the British attacked BUENOS AIRES. I didn't mention Argentina. Did you miss that?

Yes you did:

"History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them. "

Buenos Aires was part of a Spanish colony, and the Bristish attacks were against the Spanish, nothing to do with Argentina, and nothing to do with the modern day territorial dispute over the Falklands.

I said that the British attacked BUENOS AIRES. I didn't mention Argentina. Did you miss that?

Yes you did:

"History indeed. A good point. In history, Britain attacked Buenos Aires but Argentina never attacked London. Argentinian's remember and you can't blame them. "

No I didn't. Let the readers decide.

Next ...

Many of you Brits sound so smug about this. You've got all of South America against you. That is not a fringe group of people. I simply feel North America should show solidarity with South America on this issue, that is all.

Edited October 10, 201015 yr by Jingthing

How is "but Argentina never attacked London." not mentioning Argentina?

You've got a side. Good for you. That doesn't mean other people or other countries have to agree with your bias on the matter. Personally, I would side with the UK on most foreign policy matters, but not this one, and I wasn't thrilled with their historical behavior in Northern Ireland either. No country is perfect.

And we didnt like Americans sponsoring the terrorist attack for 40 years against innocent British civilians, we didnt here any Septics speak out against this ... well not until you got done over 10 years ago.

But it was predictable of your government (esp Clinton) to side with the Argentinians earlier this year on several occasions, despite British soldiers dying and getting maimed whilst fighting along side American soldiers in Ira/Afghanistan to assist your agenda, but true to form Americans know <deleted> all of the history of the Islands and show themselves up as the fair-weather deceitful friends theyre renowned as being.

Many of you Brits sound so smug about this. You've got all of South America against you. That is not a fringe group of people.

But we have the Falkland Islanders with us. They wish to remain British.