Here we go again....

quote:

Argentina's military threat raises fears over Falklands
Graeme Baker, Telegraph (UK), 8 Jul 08
Article link

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 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.....

Irish Guard,

I don't know if you're reading this, but I made a request to you via PM to make this a cross-posted topic to the "In the News" section. If you don't think it's that worthy of being cross-posted there, then I'm afraid we disagree, although Mods alone can make that special link that allows the cross-posting of a topic to multiple forums within military.com.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Enssantor,

Please don't fight them this time. I've been saving for years to vacation there.

They were beaten once I guess it would not be wrong to beat them again.

Let's ask a serious question that effects both our countries.

Did Ronald Reagan abandon the Monroe doctrine in 1982? This, I believe, is important to us in preventing colonization and interference from the eastern hemisphere. It's worded to focus on European colonialism but that's not the issue anymore, and times have changed so that Europe is not solely capable of colonizing or subverting Western Hemisphere nations. I think it's obvious what this implies.

The worst thing was that he called the Monroe Doctrine outdated, even though it gave us a legal defence against Soviet colonization in Cuba and modern Chinese/Islamic colonization and subversion in South America.

So would it have seriously harmed US-UK relations if Reagan, or any US figure, had stood up for the principle of the Monroe doctrine?

I'm not taking a stance either pro-Argentine or pro-British with this, just a theoretical question about history.

I don't really see how it could apply as the British claim on the Falklands pre-dated that declaration. I would also dispute that the Monroe Doctrine gave the US "legal defence" against anything as it was essentially unilateral.

By the way why didn't the US cite the Monroe Doctrine to eject Britain and France from their territories in Central America?

Posted by Thrust_0311

quote:

Please don't fight them this time. I've been saving for years to vacation there.

Jesus, after a week on East Falkland I'd have paid good money to LEAVE (Its wet, its windy, its boggy.....hell, its like Wales without pubs!)

quote:

Originally posted by trench4450:
Posted by Thrust_0311

quote:

Please don't fight them this time. I've been saving for years to vacation there.

Jesus, after a week on East Falkland I'd have paid good money to LEAVE (Its wet, its windy, its boggy.....hell, its like Wales without pubs!)

That's one reason why I've never understood why the Argentinians want the place, they really hate the cold, just look how few live in the colder south of Argentina compared with the warmer north.

Trench ! It's about time you showed up for morning formation. Have you been sleeping through Reveille ? {I mentioned your absence to Irish Guard so that he could call the Red Caps and get you back here. }

Wales..? Guess you will not be getting a birthday card from the Wales Department of Tourism this year after that statement...

...I've thought the Falklands seemed kinda like the outer Hebrides or Orkneys..? Wales seems a beautiful place...Of course that does depend on the angle/light/film used by the one taking the photo I guess...?...

The Falklands Governor really needs to plant some trees, and maybe do something about that wind and rain... .

B-burg:--- Good points. Another thing is that If memory serves---I think The Falklands are about 300 miles from the coast of the Argies,,, by what leap o' logic did they figure they had "dibs" (first choice pick) on Islands that were not theirs and whose residents were subjects of the Crown of the U.K. and speak english, have British surnames, and have a small detachment of Royal Marines...?

What did they hope to gain? If they wanted some British sheep I'm sure they could have traded some argieland Beef cattle for some Wool makers. Too bad for the several men in uniform who died for the political stunts/stupidity of some Argie Junta members.

Without me cheating and going to Google, I'll guess that British settlers planted the Flag in about the 1740s-1750s on the Falkland Islands. The Monroe Doctrine didn't come about until 1823 in a statement by President Monroe to the U.S.Congress.

The history of the Falklands is actually pretty complicated and I would advise you to have at Wikipedia, last time I looked it was fairly accurate and to be honest I don't really feel like regurgitating it.
Suffice it to say that Britain, France and Spain all had claims at various times and the Argentines feel their claim descends from the Spanish one after their independence. Britain is however the only nation to have had any form of long term settlement there.

My personal opinion is that the Argentines only want it for reasons of machismo, they've been told "no" and that hurts their Latin pride.

Where they get even more eccentric is in claiming places like South Georgia, the South Sandwich Isles and a good chunk of Antarctica which no Spaniard or Argentine had been anywhere near until long after the UK had snagged them.

quote:

Originally posted by swremwin:
Trench ! It's about time you showed up for morning formation. Have you been sleeping through Reveille ? {I mentioned your absence to Irish Guard so that he could call the Red Caps and get you back here. }

Been a difficult year.
In and out of hospital for tests and then surgery to have a growth removed. Now Mrs T is going through the same.
Roll on 2009

Sorry to hear (read) that Trench... Hope you and Mrs. T get better. Your contributions to the website are missed when you are not here.

quote:

Originally posted by Bladensburg:
I don't really see how it could apply as the British claim on the Falklands pre-dated that declaration. I would also dispute that the Monroe Doctrine gave the US "legal defence" against anything as it was essentially unilateral.

By the way why didn't the US cite the Monroe Doctrine to eject Britain and France from their territories in Central America?

I think it was contrary to American practice to endorse the British in the war by non-action. It isn't important to me one way or another who was right, but the principle is important. Also there were those who cited the Monroe Doctrine when the Soviets built a base in Cuba (which Kennedy did nothing about). The ruling class does what is expedient, we understand, but better to stick to principle in every case than be discredited when we MUST cite the law.

I'm also pretty sure that the document has nothing to do with pre-existing colonies. French refugees of Haiti were taken in by Louisiana. Only a few expansionists actually wanted to take over Canada after WW1. When a NEW takeover/colonization goes into effect is when the doctrine applies, such as when Napoleon III sent troops beyond Mexico and into the disputed SouthWest - we very nearly called a ceasefire in our civil war to enforce our sphere of influence.