The chilean question.

Other Wars Falklands/Malvinas War
#21

Actually the problem I have with the 1833 take over is that it wasn’t by any stretch of the imagination an invasion. After politely objecting to Argentine claims over the Falklands in 1820, 1825 and 1829, after giving permission for Vernet’s expeditions in 1826 and 1828, the British Government asserted sovereignty by turning up and asking the Argentine commander very politely to remove the Argentine flag.

In addition, the Argentine Government claims that they repatriated the settlers. Except that they didn’t, the settlers remained on the Islands. One of Vernet’s emloyees William Dickson was appointed the first Governor.

Also, the Argentine Government claim that they wouldn’t permit Argentines to own property and businesses on the Island. This is also bollocks, Vernet was allowed to continue his enterprise under the British Admin. It only fell apart thanks to one Antonio Rivero.

Now Gaucho Rivero is an interesting one. In Argentina he’s a folk hero for gallantly resisting the British following the 1833 return. In actual fact, he murdered 5 Argentine colonists because he had a problem with the way Vernet paid his wages in his own currency that he then later devalued.

Moving onto more recent times. The tone of the start of this thread is hostile to Chile for helping the British. However, given the bullying attitude that Argentina had displayed toward Chile in the past it is perfectly understandable.

The dispute with Uruguay is an attempt to control what they do on their side of the border. Again they consulted with Argentina first, finding no objections they proceeded, then Argentina changes its mind and launches all sort of economic sanctions to force them to heal. Once again trying to get its own way by bullying.

Ignoring the fact that most of the Argentine claim for sovereignty is based on the papal bull, and is just that, bull. The islands have developed a completely separate and distinct identity over nearly 2 centuries, they do not want to be part of Argentina and any hope you had of sovereignty was blown when your military stomped all over their lives in 1982. Your Governments petty actions since have done nothing to ingratiate it with the Islanders and is just driving them further and further away.

All of these problems are the result of your countries actions but Argentina never accepts responsibility for the fact it was in the wrong. You teach a bizarre sort of history that distorts the facts to perpetually portray Argentina as the victim of perfidious Albion.

Grow up and accept responsibility, your country invaded in 1982, it sparked a senseless, useless war that wasted many lives.

#22

I wish I could say it was untrue.

It appears many Argentines (not just those on this site) are of the opinion that if htey lost, then the British must be guilty of some how cheating or (in extremis) war crimes.

Bizarre behaviour. I used to say it machimso, especially with Irish Duck and Arkantos.

#23

LR there is no territorial problem with Uruguay. :rolleyes:

The natural border with is Chile is the Andes, They take the skinny part ( and I mean skinny) we took the fat part, well bad luck for them but that is history.

The border question with this country is already solved. There still some items to be defined but those are trivial things an non territorial related.

And yet one more link.

Chile ‘helped UK over Falklands’


British troops raise the flag on the Falklands during the conflict

A forthcoming book has revealed Chile’s military intelligence helped Britain during the 1982 Falklands conflict.

The book has threatened a possible diplomatic row between Chile and Argentina over the revelations of a secret alliance with the UK.
Chilean president Ricardo Lagos has forwarded parts of the book to the Argentine foreign ministry.
The book alleges Chile provided intelligence in return for half-price military aircraft.

‘Cut-price deal’

The book, The Official History of the Falklands War, details the deal between the governments of Margaret Thatcher and General Augusto Pinochet, said the BBC’s Chilean correspondent Clinton Porteous.
Extracts from it claim “the Chilean military provided key information on the movement of Argentine forces and other assistance, and in return were offered a cut-price deal on the purchase of military aircraft”.
Mr Lagos said he received a letter and extracts of the book from British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He replied to Mr Blair and forwarded the extracts to the Argentines.

The Falklands were invaded by Argentina in 1982

Chile was officially neutral during the conflict, but the book claims it considered a border offensive against Argentina to draw military forces away from The Falklands.
Argentina and Chile both had military governments at the time and were “close to war”, the BBC correspondent said.
The alliance between the UK and Chile remained secret, he said, because the Thatcher government did not want to be publicly associated with a military government known for human rights abuses. After leaving office, however, Mrs Thatcher admitted General Pinochet had helped save many British lives during the conflict. The operation to re-take the Falklands, which came after Argentina invaded in April 1982, cost 255 British and 655 Argentine lives.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4622565.stm

The most funny part ( and with this I always made hungry the Pinochet supporters :twisted: ) is the despite all the efforst of the Chilean dictatorship to help Britain and defeat Argentina he was put in house arrest the fist time he put the foot in U.K.

And the ironic part is the todays Chile depend in Argentine Oil/gas to survive the intense winters.

Isnt this lovely ?

No moral.

Prove she knew what was going on?

The Junta did, but you can’t prove that Thatcher knew

There was no need of a tremendous amount of brains to realize that the human Rights were violated repeatly in those days in Argentina and Chile, Chile being by far more outspoken with that and also more public, some people was shot in the National Stadium of Santiago…so, you figure.

#24

Oil and Gas cause a fair few wars if not properly managed.

If Chile rely on you for these items, it is not neccesarily a good thing.

#25

Ignoring the point as usual. La plus ca change…

It wasn’t in 1982, it wasn’t until 1984 if memory serves me correct. It was also the case that Argentina had a habit of massing troops on the border in a threatening posture.

But carry on ignoring the reasons why Chile supported the UK.

EDIT

Whilst I remember, there was also the implicit threat made by Galtieri that after the Falklands, Chile was next.

#26

No, no no, I dont ignore the reasons, I am very aware of that.
And wasnt 1984 but much later since the definitive agreements were signed in the 1990s.

My point is some people have understimated the Chilean support to the British war effort, and/or they attemp to forgive/forget the behavior of Chile in those days.

But I dont, they are not my brothers as somebody want to make believe.

Oil and Gas cause a fair few wars if not properly managed.

If Chile rely on you for these items, it is not neccesarily a good thing.

100 % agreed, maybe is not good for Chile but is very amusing to see how the situation has changed, at list from the Argentine point of view.
If they misbehave Argentina will close the tap. :cool:

#27

An eye for an eye just leaves everyone blind. You live in the past and you repeat the mistakes of the past.

#28

I never claimed to be the nicest guy around. :wink:

#29

And Chile does what?

#30

Interesting that the first thought was to invoke strong arm tactics…sums it all up nicely really.

#31

And Chile does what?

My guessing is that they would need to find an alternative way of supply. More expensive than the Argentine one.

#32

HA HAHAA AHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHA H HAHAHAH A

No wait, no, no, no

HAHAHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAHAHA HAHA

Or they just roll in to your country and take it?

Religion and resources, THE two biggest contributers to start wars. Greater than even politics and rivalry.

You turn off the tap to Chile, they may invade, and bring a few friends. After all you turn the tap on one country, you may do it to others.

#33

Not quite as funny…a simple ROTFLMAO would work. Your just wasting space on the server. Huh huh huh :twisted:

#34

Roftflmao?

#35

The military option seems exagerated to me, but I must recognize that the Argentine armed forces arent much deterrance today for the Chilean forces.

#36

I wouldn’t say it was exagerated.

In the scenario Argentina cuts off resources to Chile.

They have three options

a. Enter dialougue to get the gas back on. (likely to have been exhausted prior to turn off).

b. Buy else where, probably more expensive and from further away thus possibly open to interference.

c. Threaten, then finally attack Argentina, take control of Gas and turn it on again. Then pay for it again or just take it.

Bear in mind this sort of thing was a major factor for the Japanese entering the second world war also.

#37

Rolling On The Floor Laughing My Ass Off - ROTFLMAO

#38

I wasn’t though.

I was being sarcastic.

#39

I guess, Eagle. We have a 3000 mile border with Canada that hasn’t been in dispute in over 200 years and another with Mexico that hasn’t been in dispute since about 1836, although Pancho Villa did make a raid into New Mexico around 1914. Neither Mexico nor the US had any desire for each others’ territory - those days were over. Oh, and those two French islands in the St. Lawrence Seaway between the US and Canada that nobody is planning on invading anytime soon. After all, they belonged to France before there was a United States or an independent Dominion of Canada. There must be a lesson in here somewhere.

#40

You do realize you’re responding to six year old posts?