Argentina and Britain: still at war

The countries are still battling over ownership of the Falklands


Argentina and Britain: still at war

Who said the Falklands War was over? Argentina and Britain are once again bickering over the Islands, with the former alleging that the latter is trying to steal oil from the disputed territory.

The conflict comes as Desire Petroleum, a British oil company, on Monday began exploratory drilling off the coast of the Falklands, where it is believed that up to 60 billion barrels of oil and 51 trillion cubic feet of gas may be trapped under the earth’s crust. Argentina claims those reserves as its own, and has become increasingly aggressive since cancelling a deal with Britain to share the development of offshore resources as a protest against British companies’ oil and gas explorations in 2007. Argentina’s government also decreed last week that any ship crossing through its waters must have a permit to reach the Falklands.

The decision is “not only a defence of Argentine sovereignty but also of all the resources” in its waters, says presidential chief of staff Anibal Fernandez. Because Argentina considers the Falklands to be within its territory, it could potentially mean a blockade of the islands.

“This is nothing new,” counters Emma Edwards, the British MLA in charge of the Falklands Islands’ oil resources. “It’s just another way they’re trying to ruin our economy.” The British government is promising to protect the sovereignty of the Falklands, and has 1,000 troops, three ships and four jets in the area. But, in the end, says Edwards, the whole kerfuffle is probably little more than a ploy to distract Argentines from a poorly performing economy and a major finance scandal involving the chief of the country’s central bank. “Whenever their economy goes south they roll out the [Falklands] issue. We’re getting quite used to it.”


Argentina and Britain: still at war

  1. The Falklands belong to Argentina, historically, geographically and otherwise. Argentina has a right to defend its waters and its ecosystem against foreign countries.

    • The falklands were British before Argentina existed!

    • The Falklands have never been owned by Argentina. "Argentina has a right to defends it's waters" Britain has the right to defend it's land and it's waters and The Falklands are British. Look what happened in 1982. Do you really want it to happen again? Argentina will get a good kicking…….. AGAIN.

    • I heard somewhere that "Possession is nine-tenths of the law"…

    • The Falklands do not belong to Argentina, historically, geographically and otherwise. Argentina has no right to claim waters and ecosystems belonging to another country. Shame on Argentina.

      Argentines are state indoctrination from birth in a revanchist and irrendentist political ideology and propaganda by their many right-wing military dictatorships since 1941. They are taught false history on a massive scale as young children and their embassies peddle their poorly sourced, revisionist and false history around the world, e.g. read:


      for a catalogue of Argentine falsehoods compared to the original historical source documents. Utterly disgraceful.

      They falsely manipulate the U.N. resolutions on the self-determination of overseas territories in order to promote their completely false claim of territorial integrity disruption and shamefully attempt to deny the Islanders the right of self-determination, all people's basic human right.

      Argentina makes totally unjustified claims on the South Georgia Islands, Sandwich Islands and Antartica.

      Argentina illegally attacked an ally and a fellow member of the United Nations by surprise in 1982, at a time when was providing Argentina defence training and materiel. Utterly disgraceful.

      Shame on Argentines and Argentina.

  2. the people of the falklands want nothing to do with argentina. i think its up to them who they are part of and they say they are british and not part of argentina.

  3. "The Falklands belong to Argentina, historically, geographically and otherwise. Argentina has a right to defend its waters and its ecosystem against foreign countries. "

    The Falkland Islands do not belong to Argentina – historically, geographically or otherwise. It never did and will not be until the people who live their decide to join them. Which is VERY unlikely.

    The Falklands were under British sovereignty before Argentina was a country. The only other nations who may have had a claim were France (having got there first) or Spain. Both of these countries gave up on their claims. And as for the Argentine claim that they inherited the islands, they never formed a part of any agreement or treaty (as the Argentines often claim).

  5. Argentina should belong to native Americans and not a hodge podge of Italian and Spanish colnialists, of course that could never happen now. The Falklands on the other hand had no indigenous population just a series of temporary settlements set up by competing colonial powers. It does have a long standing settled population now though and they wish to remain British, alongside the overwhelming right to self determination Britain also has by far the most sound and justified historical claim. Tbh I don't know if its ever worth commenting on this issue, every message board is trashed by bigotted hypocritcal Argentine colonialsists.

    The Falklands are 300 miles away from mainland Argentina, outside of the 12 mile territorial waters and also outside the 250 mile economic zone. As decreed by the United Nations.

    What do you mean otherwise? The only otherwise i can think of is that there are 3000 inhabitants' on those islands that (under the UN charter) have a right to self-determination, and they chose to remain with the UK.

  8. Argentine claims are only dusted off and pushed to the front of their agenda when 1) they are in political trouble, or 2) they smell oil?

    And as for them accusing the UK of Imperialism the irony is that the island is exercising its modern UN rights to self-determination, whilst the Argentines are trying to exercise 19th century colonialism by forcing their removal!! Laughable if it wasn't so serious.

    The Argentines need to start reading factual history instead of the brainwashing they all get at school using faulty, misguided and just downright untrue accounts of the past.

    • Laundryman, the Malvinas were part of the Argentinian territory in 1833 when British Forces invaded them. It is a childish argument to talk about "who discovered them first". It is obvious that the nearest country to the islands is Argentina and not Britain, France, Spain, Chile or Brazil. The islands cannot sustain themselves, they need help from outside. FACT!

      If you believe that the Malvinas should belong to Britain just because a British guy travelled there in the 1600's , then let the Italians have Britain as the Romans were the first people from outside the UK to discover Britain.

      • I think it is important to challenge your assertion that the British invaded the islands in 1833. That is just sheer and utter nonsense.

        It was only after Louis Vernet (who had asked the permission of the British consulate to go to the islands in the first place) was appointed to a rank in the Argentine government did the British complain and then send HMS Clio whose crew then kicked out the Argentine Garrison (the Island was British sovereign territory after all), but did not remove any settlers. This can be proven from the journals of Charles Darwin who arrived at the island's shortly after this took place on HMS Beagle! He's records show that settlers remained on the island and continued their work on the account of Vernet.

        Your hypocrisy is charming. On one hand you say that the British should not claim the islands due to history alone whereas that is exactly what the Argentines claim with regards to Argentine sovereignty! (That and a weird assertion regarding proximity.)

      • Sorry Sandra, but you need to get your facts correct before you start hurlings "FACTS!" at me. Even Wikipedia (that font of all knowledge.. and that was irony for those that don't get it.) has a better grasp of the historical facts than the Argentines seem to… and you it seems.

        Argentines get schooled from a very early age into believing that they had a colony and governor on the island prior to the British getting there and that the British had them all removed. Thats just complete nonsense and can be disproven through historical documentation and records. It is a fact that Britain had a settlement (at port Egmont) before Argentina was even a country. When they left, they asserted their rights to return by leaving a plaque behind, the same as the Spanish. (This may seem a strange way in this age of instant communications, but back then it was an internationally acceptable method.)

      • Let's just address your 'facts'. How is it childish to talk about the historical concept of prior discovery? This concept has been used countless times in the past to determine true ownership and is internationally accepted.

        The financial records of the Falkland islands are a matter of public record and open for all to see. They are a most successful fishing and farming community and only rely on the UK for defence. Just visit their website. It is a success that the Argentinians appear to want to stop at every opportunity, for example by deliberately overfishing in the area.

        No I do not believe that the Falkland islands should belong to Britain just because it was a British guy who went there first. I also rely on hundreds of years of history, where the islands have been inhabited by British citizens, a history that predates the emergence of Argentina as a country. But mostly I rely on the fact that the islanders themselves want to remain British, a concept in line with the UN doctrine on the right to self determination.

  9. "Argentina has a right to defend its waters and its ecosystem against foreign countries. "

    Sandra, forgive me if I didn;t fully understand your statment, but i read between the lines that "the Argetines should be allowed to stop the British from drilling for oil in their waters?" – Please correct me if that is not what you meant.

    But if it is, do you honestly beleive that if the British gave up the islands and moved out (please note i did not say give it back, as it was never theirs in the first place), that the Argetines wouldn't just move their own rigs in and start ripping up the ocean floor, as they are doing nearer to their own coast?

    Ecology is one thing, but hipocrasy is another.

  10. Both Britain and Argentina have economic problems. The Falklands/Malvinas are getting toyed by these two imperial anachronistic powers desperate to solve debt issues with alleged oil reserves. The best outcome is that it blows in faces of both these imperialists and nothing gets discovered. That would be poetic justice.

  11. Hi John,
    Actually you may be right there, nothing may well be found. But if that is the case then at least the islanders will feel a little safer as the Argentines will probably shut up for a little while.

    But you say that the Falklands are being toyed with by both Britan and Argentina, however were you aware that as an independent overseas territory, it was the Falklands government that issued the oil drilling licenses and it is the Falklands islands themselves who will reap the rewards of tax revenues. No revenue will go to the UK at all. (They will probalbly benefit to some degree with infrastructure etc.) If Britain was still that 'imperialistic' power as you claim, wouldnt they want all the revenue themselves?

    I've heard a lot of Empire bashing recently, and i'm more and more convinced that its misplaced.

    Hope you have a great day!

  12. Geeze… When will the UK realize that we are in the 21st Century. Empires are a thing of the past. 2700 British pirates living in a land miles away from their own home. If they feel so British why don't they go back to the UK? Because they are there to stir trouble.

    I am glad my president is supporting Argentina.

    Tom, Chicago, IL

    • Hi Tom,

      Geeze, when will the US give up Puerto Rico back to the Spanish after they invaded and seized control in 1898 during the Spanish-American war? (But this wasn't in any way Imperialistic, was it… Was it?)

      Well the simple answer, Tom, is that a referendum was held in Puerto Rico in 1951 which gave them the option on whether to remain an 'unincorporated territory of the US', they voted in favor, hence the reason – legitimately – why Puerto Rico remains under the sovereignty of the United States of America. This was in line with the UN charter allowing self determination.

      A perfectly legitimate way to determine sovereignty in the modern age… exactly what happened in the Falklands.

      Have a great day!

    • Hi Tom,

      There to stir trouble. Boy they've been waiting for a long time to stir trouble. Its a hell of a long wait since 1833 to start stiring trouble now isnt it..

      Your glad? I'm very sad that Mr Obama appears to favour the Argentine claim (not sure if he really does to be honest). History and international law are on the side of the British in this matter, so where does that leave your president? Supporting an illegal claim? Somehow i'd doubt that.

      In reality Mr Obama is playing politics. He can't side with the Brits openly due to the politics of the Americas, however he (or Mrs Clinton anyhow) did not side with the Argentines, in fact she just made a political Gaff, trying to sit on the fence but playing into the hands of the Argentines. There is nothing to discuss over the Falklands.

    • Tom,

      Get yourself a big mac, fries a nice diet coke and grab a history book.

      have the greatest of days

    • If thats the case, I'm sure you'd support giving Alaska to Canada? I mean, it IS attached to our country, and not yours. (although, you can have Palin!)

      • Avid Reader… This is a completely different story. The British took the Malvinas/Falkands by force by invading them. Canada SOLD Alaska to the US for $7.2 million, therefore this was an agreement between your government and the US.

        BTW, I am not from the US, in case you are wondering.

        • The British did not remove the Argentines by force in 1833, they simply took them back as they did in 1982. Strange how history repeats itself .

        • I don't think we need to wonder too much when you're from.

        • Russia sold Alaska…. dammit. This whole thread is a f*ckbox of non-researched history.

          • Hi Poker Face
            Sandra's grasp of history is a mighty bit odd and un researched, but my comments on the history of the Falklands are taken from the encyclopaedia Britannica (one of the most respected books in the world) and other papers published by respected historians and fully referenced (you can find a link further down in this thread). So although you are absolutely correct that Russia did sell Alaska to the U.S. (For a paltry fee, as i remember) your generalisation is misplaced.
            Have a great day!

  13. The Argentines arguing about the sovereignty of the falklands dont even originally come from Argentina, there all from Italy and Spain, there economy would be more sucessful being run by the Natives.

    • Hi Aidy,
      You are absolutely right. And in fact it goes deeper than that. Many people aren't aware that the two individuals that the Argentines assert were the ones who claimed the Falkland islands on their behalf weren't even Argentine to begin with! Louis Vernet, who built a settlement in the early 1800s, that's the request of the British, was actually a German who had resided in France and then move to Argentina to make his fortune.
      The privateer / pirate David Jewett who allegedly claimed the islands on 6th of November 1820 was actually an American!
      The population of Argentina is made up of Spanish, German, Italian, Welsh and many other nationalities. The only peoples who aren't represented to any real and meaningful degree are the indigenous population!

  14. It seems to me that the Argentine claim is based on nothing more than the fact the islands are quite close to their country – what utter ridiculousnous!

    Why dont the Argentines hand their country back to the Indians? In fact while we're in 'ridiculous' mode (Just for you Tom from Chicago) why dont the Americans give up the lands they seized from the Indians they oppressed and exterminated. How about the Americans handing back some of the territories they seized in the Pacific – I believe your country has overlapping claims with nations like Kiribati over some of the territories your country 'democratically' seized. Hilarious hypocracy from Master Tom.

    • Hi Gerrad, good to have your opinion.

      As well as their (flaky) claims due to geography (if that were to stand up, where does Hawaii sit?) they also presented a delegation to the London School of Economics in 2007 where they put forward their claims in a 'Pamphlet' yes a whole seven pages, detailing their claims of historical value and how the Islands were inherited from Spain and how their population were kicked out in favour of the Brits. They even wheeled out a couple of historians and a spattering of politicians to support it.

      In 2008 two historians, Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper published their response to the pamphet. It was a bit longer at 40 pages and cites the true history, tearing up the pamphets for ass paper but also gives references for historical documents. If you are interested you can find it here http://www.falklandshistory.org/

      The Argentine moral? – Tell a lie and keep repeating it and some damn fool will believe you.

    • Why canadians dont hand their country back to first nations? they were first here in Canada? or ratified UN conventions? why dont you look at your own problems instead of having opinions on issues that you do not know nothing.

  15. Tom has been smoking pot for to long

  16. It's funny you know, the Argentines often use the phrase 'Pirates' when they talk about the Falklanders. (You can see it on the front of the paper in the picture above).

    In the same breath they also cite (wrongly) that an Argentine by the name of David Hewitt claimed the islands on behalf of United Provinces of the River Plate (Argentina didn't exist then). But Hewitt committed Piracy twice whilst he was in the Islands! (a Portguese and an America ship).

    Bunch of hipocrites!

  17. I think the UK can settle this satisfactorily. Generally, the UK pays little serious attention to the rantings of South American politicians (e.g. de Kirchner of Argentina or Chavez of Venezuela), as they are generally only aiming at covering up their domestic inadequacies.
    However, if push comes to shove and we have to defend our citizens, no-one should rule out the possibility of British cruise missiles landing on appropriate air and naval bases – or on Buenos Aires or Caracas for that matter. Mostly submarine-launched, of course, so they won't know when or where. And the UK also has an aircraft-launched version.
    Don't push, we might get annoyed.

  18. Argentina and Britain: still at war
    The countries are still battling over ownership of the Falklands
    The headline is rather misleading on two counts:-

    1. Argentina and Britain are not "at war" now – they were at war in 1982, and Britain won.

    2. "Battling over ownership"? The only "owners" are the people who live there – the whole history of the claims and counter claims relates to this issue of "ownership" – and how do you define ownership, if the country in which people live are not the owners of that country?

    • Hi Grizelda,

      I agree that the headline was misleading, however (and forgive me for being a touch pendantic) The British and Argentines were never actually 'At War' in 1982 either. You see war is a legal term and a unilateral declararation of war is illegal under the United Nations (which is why there was such furore over the Iraq invasion). The simple fact is that Argentina illegally invaded and the British defended themselves.

      There are also a number of ways historically that ownership is defined in international law. The first is to set up a colony, which needs to be successful. Also militarily accuiring land was (back in the day) an acceptable way. In the case of the 1700's, when the British initially left the islands, they re-asserted ownership by leaving a plaque behind. A perfectly acceptable way to assert sovereignty at the time.

      Have a great day!

    • Ever been to Taiwan? it must be an island thing

  19. Hello old chaps,

    I'm a Kelper myself I consider myself in a rather privileged position to comment on this matter, and if I may..

    I say it's about time we got some decent sexy wimmin, food and world class football on these islands, for the first time since we stole these territories off the degos nearly 200 years ago.

    At-least we won't have to cry in to our pints every time Argentina pwnes England in the WC. Have you seen the fat corduroy trouser, milk bottle glasses wearing fat creatures I am told are femmes that inhabitant these islands? They could make women from Newcastle look sophisticated.

    Hear hear, tally-ho

    • Cornelius you are about as British as I am get a life.


  20. this matter is so boring now! yawn. i agree with agent0060 if any threatening move is made by argentina we should just drop some missiles on their turf, smack band on buenos aires and strategic argie naval/ air bases . lets just keep the islanders from having any more damage to the falklands. The 82 war has left them with thousands of mines still on the islands to this day…armed as well as islanders being held hostage! falklands are brittish as they chose to be! and who is the fucking moron armerican who think that obama is great for suposedly supporting argentina. Neutral status the his words was, if it does kick off i am certain his position will change to supporting his allies if he wants to keep his presidency. jheesss!!

  21. this matter is so boring now! yawn. i agree with agent0060 if any threatening move is made by argentina we should just drop some missiles on their turf i.e strategic naval/air bases and maybe on buenos aires for good measure. keep the fight away from the falklands so that the islanders do not have to suffer more damage from more mines clogging the land and experiences the being held hostage. as from the comment made by tom… the words used were "taking a neutral position". if this does kick off im sure that he will support the uk if he wants to carry on being liked as president. brittsh troops have bled along side the US in iraq and afganistan in support of their cause. jhess!

  22. warmongers!

  23. Peace! Peace! Peace! Peace

  24. Shame on those who wish for missils to be sent to anyone! No one deserves that…..

  25. Oil explorer Desire Petroleum (DES.L) will report that oil discovered in test drilling off the Falkland Islands is not commercially viable, The Sunday Times reported, citing industry sources.

    The newspaper said Desire was expected to say that while it had found oil, there was not enough to justify developing the field.

    • Well if thats the case maybe the Argentines will shut up and let the Islanders get on with their lives for a bit…

  26. I hope Britain gets is ass kicked.

    • I hope you learn to spell as you missed out the "t" in its.

      Its fairly obvious your ether a resentful Argentinian or just a dick. I'm guessing its the latter!

    • Not a chance bucko. Why don't you suggest that in a local pub? Well worth the price of a pint!

Sign in to comment.