Posted on 07/08/2008 10:36:45 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
Argentina raised the prospect of posting military forces in the Antarctic region yesterday, with the announcement of plans to use troops to defend its interests.
President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner told defence chiefs that Argentina must be prepared to assert its sovereignty and protect its natural resources, as nations compete to claim areas of the region believed to be rich in oil.
The plans threaten to inflame tensions between Britain and Argentina over the Falkland Islands, which the South American nation still considers to be its sovereign territory despite losing a war in 1982.
Argentinian forces were driven from the islands by a British naval task force after three months of fighting and the loss of hundreds of lives. The victory proved decisive in the re-election in 1983 of Margaret Thatcher.
"This world is no longer a world divided by ideology," Mrs Fernández said. "It is more complex, and it is necessary to defend our natural resources, our Antarctica, our water."
The Argentine president compared the plan to Brazil using its soldiers to protect resources in Amazon rainforests.
The proposals come as Britain considers whether formally to claim exploration rights to extended areas of the sea bed around the Falklands, South Georgia and the British Antarctic Territory.
Moves are also being made by Argentina, Australia, China, France, New Zealand and Norway to boost their presence and lay claim to waters that could yield oil. Antarctica, protected under a 1959 treaty allowing only scientific research, is the only continent that remains free of military forces.
The Argentine president's comments are the first to suggest the use of troops to protect a country's interests.
The proposals come as Mrs Fernández faces growing opposition at home after winning power last year in a landslide victory to succeed her husband, Néstor Kirchner, as president.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
“...which the South American nation still considers to be its sovereign territory despite losing a war in 1982.”
That’s what happens when you fail to have a proper war.
"Sic Semper Britannia"
If not maybe Reagan and John Paul II don't win the Cold War.
<...proposals come as Mrs Fernández faces growing opposition at home after winning power last year in a landslide victory...>
Stupid cow! Trying to distract Argentinians from how she’s poorly led their nation. The Brits will whoop their bums and the result will be a lot of dead young Argentinian men. Uselessly dead, I might add.
The UK won in the Falklands against the Argentine Junta in 1982 and the El Salvadorans won against the FMLN in 1989 despite having been abandoned by their Argentine “allies” in 1982.
The fact that “liberals” and “populists” have run Argentina into the ground is not Reagan’s fault. Reagan supported the side of freedom in 1982 and a repulsive dictatorship died as a result. This gave credibility to the movement for democratic rights across Latin America and helped secure ultimate victory against the communists in the region during the Cold War.
If Frau Kirchner were doing anything other than trying to pander to conservative, nationalist, elements she has alienated with her export tax policies she would respect the will of the people of the islands - the vast majority of whom consider themselves British subjects.
Let’s see - support our steadfast democratic ally Great Britain or the dictatorship of an unstable South American country. Nope, sorry, Reagan made the right call.
An interesting book in which Argentina attempts to establish a military presence in Antarctica to claim the region's abundant natural resources. The only thing standing in their way is Commander Amanda Garrett, USN, and her stealth destroyer, the USS Cunningham.
The Argies were running the only successful anti-Leftist counterinsurgency in the hemisphere. General Galtieri deserved our support. Instead, they were stabbed in the back.
Perfidious Albion is not a "Democracy" and supporting Democracy is a Wilsonian Liberal, NOT A CONSERVATIVE or Libertarian point of view to say the least.
Perfidious Albion is not a "Democracy" and supporting Democracy is a Wilsonian Liberal, NOT A CONSERVATIVE or Libertarian point of view to say the least.
Please explain the logic of the above sentence. You seem to be saying that the UK is not a democracy, still the reason we should not support them is because supporting democracy is, in your opinion, "NOT A CONSERVATIVE or Libertarian point of view". The UK is a constitutional monarchy, not a democracy but then there hasn't been an actual democracy since about the 4th century BC.
Sorry but most people who call themselves "conservatives" in the US, are actually not what Europeans or Latin Americans would call "conservatives" - who are typically extreme nationalist supporters of authoritarian rule and in some cases monarchists. We are, at risk of calling down the wrath of the mods and everyone else, perhaps better described as "traditionalist liberals" - believers in God, supporters of tradition, individual liberty, representative government and moderate nationalism. By those standards the Argentine Junta was far more "perfidious" (not to mention down right murderous) than the Britain has been since the 17th century.
The Argies were running the only successful anti-Leftist counterinsurgency in the hemisphere
No they weren't. There were a few Argentine trainers in Honduras and El Salvador. They provided training assistance but their level of operational success was, according to an acquaintance with a 36 in his MOS, "not good". Things actually improved after they were pulled out. Uruguay and Peru were waging counter insurgencies that were ultimately just as successful and that had much lower body counts and much lower error rates.
Bottom line is, in the Falklands and later across Latin America freedom won, Galtieri lost and Al Haig went off to a glorious retirement.
“Our Antarctica”?
Are you seriously suggesting we should have stabbed England and Maggie Thatcher, our greatest ally in the back? Right when we were trying to stop the Soviets in Europe?
I don’t see where the Brits have the stones to defend the Falklands today. It’s a far different country than 25 years ago.
Plus the Ministry of Defence just slashed the Royal Navy down from 44 ships to 13. Not much more than a Coast Guard these days.
Jeeze, what is this?
Rumors of war, indeed.
While I do give the UK and hard time because of their loss of sovereignty to the EU, we chose the right path in 1982. They have never nor ever will be a latin american country that will be or has been as good an ally as the Brits have. Their militaries and governments are a joke.If the Argies try it again its time to bomb them plain and simple. This is our sphere of influence and we cant tolerate some idiots in argentina attacking our allies or our interests.
Sic Semper Tyrannis
Love to see the Brits knock snot out of the Argentines again.
“Plus the Ministry of Defence just slashed the Royal Navy down from 44 ships to 13.”
I didn’t know it was that bad.
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.