Falkland fear as Argentina steps up show of strength

[Voice1]

From the Scotsman:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=296232006

AN INCREASINGLY anxious UK government is closely monitoring a build-up of Argentinian military strength and a series of confrontations with the RAF close to the Falkland Islands, Scotland on Sunday can reveal.

The activity has led Tony Blair's most senior advisers to demand he issues a "hands-off" warning to Buenos Aires.

......
I really hope that i'm wrong on this, but I think Blair has been taking tips from Thatcher, before her war in the early 1980s, she was regarded as the most unpopular PM in history, she still is to many of us. Blair is now in a similar position.

[lostexpectation]

1. this was about oil too?

im 26 i only read a bit this year that this short war was about oil too, theres a string of oil companies operating off the argentinion continental shelf

[Voice1]

2. I don't think it was about oil no

The last Falklands war (and I really hope that was the last one) was more to do with Thatcher (in power from 1979 to 1990 here in Britain) getting worried by her low approval ratings, and an election was coming up the next year.

I think this excerpt says everything from this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Thatcher/Story/0,2763,400983,00.html

The Prime Minister's standing on VF Day will not be her standing on Polling Day. Nevertheless, the Ten Weeks War has done wonders for her. Last year she was bottom of the pops: the "worst Prime Minister" said 48 per cent of Gallup respondents, 12 per cent worse than Neville Chamberlain. When she arrived at Blackpool for her party conference last autumn she opened the Times and read "The Most Unpopular Prime Minister Since Polls Began."

Today a lot more people think she's wonderful. Her crisis-management rating, as measured by MORI, soared from 64 per cent approval at the beginning of the affair to 84 per cent at the end. Interestingly, 54 per cent remained "dissatisfied" with her Prime Ministership in general, compared with the 40 per cent who were pleased. MORI discovered that more people supported the Government after the Falklands had been mentioned than when other more general questions were asked first. Nevertheless, if the General Election were tomorrow she would be queen of all.

[megatherium]

8. self-delete.

never mind.

[IndianaGreen]

3. If Argentina is overcome by Falkland revanchism, this would be the time...

to retake the Falklands. What is Tony "The Poodle" Blair going to do? Unlike Thatcher, Blair has his military already committed to the Middle East, and he won't have an Ark Royal to lead an invasion force.

I don't think Argentina will embark on the sort of military adventures that military juntas used to do in the past, so I will dismiss all of this as nothing more than posturing.

[Voice1]

4. Yes, Indiana, it may be posturing

And I was wondering myself how on earth the troops, which we are always told are overstretched, would be able to deal with such a war. However, this news still worries me, as we don't know what's going on in the minds of Blair & Co, unfortunately.

[Posteritatis]

5. If the United States was ever invaded

I rather imagine even Bush would pull at least some forces out of Iraq to repel the invaders.

This would be the same sort of situation, and it's not as though the entire British Army or Royal Navy is parked in Iraq or the Gulf right now.

Besides, it's still Britain. In the words of the great Mr. T, I pity the fool who takes them on militarily without being a major power - something Argentina is most assuredly not. Someone who takes them on twice, after getting drubbed the first time? Insert additional pity.

I can't really see it happening.

[fedsron2us]

6. The more pertinent question is what would the Bush administration do ?

The relationship between the US and the UK came under great strain when Reagan sat on his hands after Galtieri invaded the Falkands. Blair has invested a lot of British taxpayer money and the lives of over 100 troops supporting the war in Iraq. If he received similar luke warm response in the event of further trouble in the Malvinas then it is likely that the UK public would decide it was time to flush their Prime Minister and the Anglo American alliance down the toilet of history. An Argentines seizure of the Falklands would give the people of Britain a perfect opportunity to divest themselves of Blair, the ludicrously expensive miltary commitment in the South Atlantic and any involvement in the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. It would be like winning the lottery.

[Voice1]

12. Indeed, there were also tensions when the US invaded Grenada

What would those advocating Britain defend our imperialistic ambitions do about the US invading a British territory?

Now, before anyone replies, I disagree with any country's imperialistic ambitions.

[muriel_volestrangler]

16. Grenada was already independent when the US invaded

(since 1974). It was still in the Commonwealth, and the Queen was head of state, but it wasn't 'British territory'. I disagree with both the US and Argentinian invasions, but in the case of the Falklands, it was both British territory, and the inhabitants were overwhelmingly (unanimously?) in favour of remaining a British colony.

[Ignacio Upton]

25. Correct

However the 1982 operations was mostly Royal Navy with Royal Air Force. Blair still has most of those at his disposal. However, the junta is no longer in power (the 1982 war's loss actually contributed to their downfall and the restoration of democracy. BTW, while we talk about Thatcher wanting to use the war for popularity, the junta saw that as a goal of the invasion as well.) and I don't see somone like Nestor Kirchner trying to start a war to get his way.

[daleo]

7. I agreed with Britain's actions during the 1980 Falklands war

Because it seemed like ignoring status quo territorial integrity would lead to a chaotic world, with the strong bullying the weak. I felt the same way about the first Iraq-U.S. war, since it seemed like a pretty clear cut case of Saddam invading a third country (Kuwait).

But the U.S. and Britain made a mockery of territorial integrity when they invaded Iraq in 2003, so it is hard to make this case anymore.

[wuushew]

9. But the effort to retake the Falklands was a bloody mess

for both sides. Why was Thatcher so impatient she could not wait for diplomacy to work or fail? All the British response did was get a lot a Marines killed and quite a few ships sunk for a some rocks. The Argentines stilled allowed the native islanders to live their there no?

[greenleaf]

10. no one likes to live under an occupation eom

[Senator Obama]

11. Diplomacy did fail...

The then-Peruvian Secretary-General of the United Nations, Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, announced that his efforts in favour of peace were futile. Although Peru and Switzerland exerted great diplomatic pressure to avoid war, they were both unable to head off the conflict, and a peace plan proposed by Peruvian president Fernando Belaúnde Terry was rejected by both sides.

British diplomacy centred on arguing that the Falkland Islanders were entitled to use the UN principle of self-determination and an apparent willingness to compromise. The UN Secretary-General said that he was amazed at the compromise that the UK had offered. Nevertheless, Argentina rejected it, basing their arguments on rights to territory based on actions before 1945 and the creation of the UN.


On another note, it is not accurate to say that Reagan and the US sat on their hands. The US had alliance agreements with both Britain and Argentina. Obviously, since Argentina was the agressor, the US was not going to intervene on her behalf. I'm certain that if side s had to be chosen, we'd have had Britains back regardless. NATO treaty would oblige the US only in the case of an actual attack on Britian. Territories don't count. What was more important behind the scenes it that it was important to Great Britain to go it alone. To admit it needed help against a third world military power in what amounts to a minor skirmish, would have been devastating to Britain's respect in the NATO force. Russia was watching intently for any signs of weakness. Remember this was the cold war period.

If you really want to know whether the US had your back, recall when Maggie met the Chinese Premier as I recall in 1982, and the Premier pretty much told Maggie, "We are not Argentina. I can order troops on Hong Kong this afternoon". Now if something had come of that, make no mistake, the US Pacific Fleet and our Marines at Okinawa would have been there in a hurry.

Obama

[daleo]

18. You are probably right about that

I was speaking about the general principle of territorial integrity. As I look back on it, I think it is quite likely Thacher wanted war anyway for her own political reasons.

[bigworld]

23. Thatcher probably welcomed the war to lift her own poll numbers...

But I certainly think that any other PM would have done the same thing. The Falklands, for better or worse, are as much a part of Great Britain as downtown Manchester (well, let's say Cardiff). As much as I loathe militarism and the Iron Lady, the UK didn't have much choice but to do what they did.

[Stella_Artois]

21. Wow

So that makes it OK ? Still allowed them to live there ? The US is not deporting Iraqis, but it doesn't make anything OK.

[Voice1]

13. As you say the case is hard to make

And as I just said to the other poster, where would you draw the line? The US invaded a British territory, Grenada, people surely wouldn't advocate our 2 countries being at war these days?

[Art_from_Ark]

14. Grenada was not a British territory when it was invaded

It had received its independence in 1974, nine years before the invasion.

[Voice1]

15. Apologies, I phrased that wrong

Britain maintained strong ties to Grenada following their independence, and many saw the invasion as a betrayal.

[Art_from_Ark]

22. The invasion was not only a betrayal

it was an attempt to divert attention away from the Beirut fiasco. And it worked.

Yay! We kicked Grenada's butt! That'll show 'em! :banghead:

[Bridget Burke]

17. The article is about UK fears, not about a real threat to the Falklands.

Argentina has built up its Air Force, but has not threatened to retake the grim sheep-studded Malvinas.

Defence experts and staff within the MoD have become concerned about the increase in military activity under Kirchner, and about his political allegiances - particularly with the controversial Chavez.

Ah--we see the real source of worry! The evil Chavez.

The statement about Thatchers' "bloody and symbolic" retaking of the Falklands was telling. When the Argentinians took over, they did not harm the Falklanders. The inhabitants preferred to belong to the UK (although they did NOT have full citizenship rights). Time, diplomacy & international opinion would probably have set things straight. But Maggie rushed to war & won many popularity points.

(England had a long history of military & economic imperialism in South America.)

[hack89]

19. So the inhabitants were irrelevant to the process?

or did I misunderstand what you mean by "set things straight"? Would should have been the results of this diplomacy?

[Bridget Burke]

24. No, I don't believe that.

"Setting things straight" would involve listening to the desires of the inhabitants. They were NOT being massacred by the Argentinians. It was NOT an emergency situation.

Rather than letting diplomacy return the Falklands to the UK, Maggie rused into a bloody war. But her popularity soared!

[Stella_Artois]

20. Didn't harm them

Apart from taking over their housing at gunpoint and sowing thousands of mines in unmarked positions.

There were no opressed Argentines on those islands, and there never were. Argentina was in the wrong, totally. It was the product of a militaristic dictatorship seeking to take the peoples minds off the troubles at home, and the thousands of "disapeared"