Thursday, May 20th 2010 - 13:59 UTC

UK rejects Argentine decision regarding Falklands’ shipping

The United Kingdom presented Wednesday a note verbale firmly rejecting the Argentine government’s recent decisions which imposes the request of official authorization for shipping to and from Argentina, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich Islands.

Foreign Office has no doubt that Falklands’ surrounding maritime areas are not Argentine jurisdictional waters

According to the text of the note presented to Argentina’s Chargé D’affairs in London, UK considers that Argentine Presidential Decree 256/2010 and Disposition 14/2010 “are not complaint with International Law including the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea”.

Furthermore the UK in the note not only reaffirms sovereignty over the Falklands and South Atlantic islands, but has “no doubt that the surrounding maritime areas of the Falkland Islands, and South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are not Argentine jurisdictional waters”.

Earlier this year to protest the current round of oil exploration in Falklands’ waters, the Argentine government decreed that all vessels sailing to and from Argentina, the Falklands, South Georgia and South Sandwich islands must request a previous authorization from the Argentine government. The implementation of the decree was left to the Argentine Coast Guard.

In the note London reminds the Argentine government that under International Law and the UN Convention of the Law of the Sea, “ships of all States enjoy the right of innocent passage through territorial waters and freedom of navigation in the waters beyond the territorial sea”.

With respect to the Straits of Magellan the UK note recalls that “the rights of international shipping to navigate these waters expeditiously and without obstacle are affirmed in the 1984 Treaty of Peace and Friendship between Chile and Argentina with respect to the Straits of Magellan”.

Article 10 of the Treaty of Magellan further provides “The Argentine Republic undertakes to maintain, at any time and in whatever circumstances, the right of ships of all flags to navigate expeditiously and without obstacles through its jurisdictional waters to and from the Strait of Magellan”.

In diplomatic jargon a note verbale is described as a communication prepared in the third person and unsigned: less formal than a note but more formal than an aide-mémoire.

 

55 comments Feed

Note: Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Comments should refer to article. Thank you.

1 Idlehands (#) May 20th, 2010 - 02:46 pm Report abuse
In light of the international law that relates to this topic it seems a rather daft and desperate measure to have tried to override it in the first place.

It is becoming quite clear that all these machinations are for domestic rather than international consumption.
2 M_of_FI (#) May 20th, 2010 - 03:56 pm Report abuse
No matter what delusion Argentina perscribe to concerning the Falkland Islands, in this case they are breaking international law, as well as a Treaty they negotiated and signed with Chile. Argentina keep announcing how they abide by international law, well this proves that they do not. I have known that this Argentine decree breaks international law, and I am delighted that Britain have finally noted it. I will love to see how Argentina respond, because no matter how they respond, they will reveal themselves as hypocrites.
3 LegionNi (#) May 20th, 2010 - 04:05 pm Report abuse
Will have to wait and see if Argentina actually try to enforce Mrs Kirchners silly decree. I suppose it is only illegal if they actually try to enforce it.
4 jorge! (#) May 20th, 2010 - 04:05 pm Report abuse
Every measure to make the lives of these squatters difficult is welcome!!!
5 J.A. Roberts (#) May 20th, 2010 - 05:10 pm Report abuse
I think you'll find that this measure has failed utterly Jorgebobo.
6 agent0060 (#) May 20th, 2010 - 05:28 pm Report abuse
jorge! I think you'll find that this is a subtle precursor to British action. Britain reminds Argentina of the rights of vessels of all States to navigate, without hindrance, all the waters that Argentina has claimed to be subject to its decree. Any attempt by Argentina to enforce its decree can be construed as piracy. I'd say it's now open season on any vessels attempting to interfere with free passage to and from the British Overseas Territories of the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. Now, the question is, punks, do you want to make our day?
7 zethe (#) May 20th, 2010 - 06:02 pm Report abuse
I would agree with agent, this looks like an unofficial warning to Argentina.

In the Falklands war we were unprepared, this time we are fully ready to strike ships via aircraft or submarine. given our pull out of Afghanistan most of the navy is free to use.
8 Argie (#) May 20th, 2010 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
6 agent0060 (#) Piracy? Are you well mate?

Piracy was the fiery cannon attack in late 1831 on the Argentine Malvinas' stations by US Pirate Captain Silas Duncan commanding the pirate ship USS Lexington, that destroyed Argentine installations and then took prisoners as many as gauchos as they managed to capture.

These illegal actions lead the way for the English to set foot on the archipelago the next year and grab it until now...

The so called “British Overseas Territories” are nothing but the result of sheer piracy, and disrespect to International Law.

England cannot thus expect others to abide by the same laws that their subjects flagrantly disobey.

And one for yourself...

Cheers!
9 zethe (#) May 20th, 2010 - 06:25 pm Report abuse
The united kingdom will expect you to abide by international law or we will use force. It is as simple as that, you bother us and we'll bother you.
10 M_of_FI (#) May 20th, 2010 - 07:41 pm Report abuse
Argie, your comments are typical of a factually incorrect Argentine. Many people on here, and by me, with a bit of research have found that the Lexington did not fire or forceably remove the Argentines from the Falklands. You also must remember Argentina wasnt even a country then and therefore did not formally lay claim to the islands.

And also most of the 'Argentines' remained on the islands for years.

Argentina can keep making up lies to support their weak claim, it wont work. And it is amusing to read Argentine comments on UK's economic state, while Argentina continues to free fall. Once a cuper power with masses of fertile land, now a country with a reputation of mismanagement, corruption and lies.
11 J.A. Roberts (#) May 20th, 2010 - 08:31 pm Report abuse
Erm Argie, that was the early 1800s. It is now 2010.

You Argentines were still conquistando the desierto and the chaco in the late 1800s. Good grief, Argentina didn't even get the chaco properly “pacified” until the early 1900s. You were still shooting up indígenas in the 1920s (Napalpí), so to apply the standards of then to today is simply ridiculous. It's more than a bit hypocritical to attempt at claiming the moral high ground now because of what Britain did nearly 180 years ago - especially since you lived by exactly the same standards then and even later.

In this UN age, it is self determination is what counts now above all else. It trumps everything. That is unambiguous in the international law which applies, and has been made crystal clear by the UN. It's time for Argentina to get over this and move on.
12 agent0060 (#) May 20th, 2010 - 08:36 pm Report abuse
Argie. A small point, but important. I am not your “mate”. Try courtesy.

Now, the question you have to ask yourselves is this. What is the size of the current British naval force in the South Atlantic? There are probably 2 vessels that you know about. But how many don't you know about? How many Fleet (hunter/killer) submarines? How many SSBNs?

I suggest you behave yourselves.
13 Rufus (#) May 20th, 2010 - 09:06 pm Report abuse
@agent0060 As a technical point, neither the SSNs or SSBNs actually need to be nearby to be a threat, bearing in mind that the Swiftsure, Trafalgar and Astute classes are all BGM-109 capable.
Meaning that they could be in Rio and still take potshots at BA
14 alexius (#) May 20th, 2010 - 09:47 pm Report abuse
8# Argie
In 1831 Captain Silas M. Duncan was ordered to sail to Falkand Islands.
When he arrived he liberated 4 American fishing ships, which had been captured and PLUNDERED.
The reason for his mission was : “ A band of pirates was operating from the islands”
He didn`t kill anyone. He charged 7 of them with PIRACY and sent them to Buenos Aires (among them Vernet).
Argie: The internet is full of informations from many different sources about Silas m Duncan/Lexington and his life and work/operations.
He was sent to chase/hunt pirates and succeded. So when you call him a pirate, i prefer to think it is humouristic meant.... Otherwise i feel sorry for you.
15 agent0060 (#) May 21st, 2010 - 03:17 pm Report abuse
@Rufus. I agree. 2,500km range. Rio de Janeiro would be about right. Would Caracas also be in range? Worth noting that BA could also be targeted from the Pacific seaboard. Offshore from Valparaiso would be well within range.
16 jorge! (#) May 21st, 2010 - 05:06 pm Report abuse
...........“Many people on here, and by me, with a bit of research have found that the Lexington did not fire or forceably remove the Argentines from the Falklands. You also must remember Argentina wasnt even a country then and therefore did not formally lay claim to the islands.”........

- You ignorant squatter, Argentina is a country since 1810, or if you like 1816, so Argentina was a country in 1833 when you invaded!!!

You know nothing about what's going on in Argentine economy. You'll be like cubans swimming to reach the coast in future!!!! Be careful with your stupid comments!

Self-determination of islanders is crap!!!!!!

Give up bloody pirates!!!
17 Argie (#) May 21st, 2010 - 06:13 pm Report abuse
Silas Duncan was asked to allow clandestine US whalers and sealhunters to go on with their depredation by stamping out those who were stopping them. i.e. the Argentines established on the nearby islands . This he did and in this way he paved the way for the English invasion.

On the other hand, we are not afraid of British power nor of her gunboat diplomacy, which reminds me of the song “Britain Waives the Rules”. We also have allies.

What are the British doing in Afghanistan, by the way?

Why is it that you are not fighting China? Save the US or Russia no other country is currently more capable of making arms for massive destruction.

Or you prefer to duck away and instead scare countries whose war material and military forces are inferior to yours?

Come off it, will you. That's something we'd expect from Nazi Germany, not from Britain.
18 zethe (#) May 21st, 2010 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
“On the other hand, we are not afraid of British power nor of her gunboat diplomacy, which reminds me of the song “Britain Waives the Rules”. We also have allies.”

So does Britain, The difference is that we wouldn't rely on them.

“What are the British doing in Afghanistan, by the way? ”
In 9/11 we lost about 500 British lives. Also there were the the London underground bombings.

What not a lot of people know is that MI5, with the help of the SAS stopped a much larger scale version of 9/11 years before 9/11 even happened. which is why after 9/11 the ONLY flight which was allowed into the US was a British plane with MI5 agents abord.
19 Rufus (#) May 21st, 2010 - 06:27 pm Report abuse
Well, looking at the jorgeometer that's one pirates, one squatters, one confusion between the United Provinces and Argentina (no, claiming the name doesn't make it true, especially when the area of the United Provinces included what is now two other countries) and one denial of the fundamental rights of other people.

Only a 4
20 Argie (#) May 21st, 2010 - 07:45 pm Report abuse
12 agent0060 (#) You're right son. I shouldn't have called you 'mate'. Would you accept my apologies? Thanks.
21 J.A. Roberts (#) May 21st, 2010 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
What are the British doing in Afghanistan? Erm, I think they might be taking part in a NATO operation because the UK is... errr... part of NATO?
22 zethe (#) May 21st, 2010 - 11:58 pm Report abuse
JA, to be honest, even if it wasn't a NATO operation, we would still be there.

Britain does not tolerate terrorist attacks on her soil.
23 Hoytred (#) May 22nd, 2010 - 12:03 am Report abuse
Argie - In 1831 Vernet seized three US ships accusing them of ‘illegal sealing’. This is regarded by the United States as an act of piracy. (November) Vernet returned to Buenos Aries. The US Consul in Buenos Aries protested and stated that the US did not recognize Argentine sovereignty in the Falklands. In December the USS Lexington arrived in the islands and ‘arrested’ 6 or 7 (?) of Vernet’s crew [the Lexington raid]. The prisoners and some 40 settlers left with the Americans, leaving a settlement of 24 people.

Facts, Argie, Facts !
24 Frank (#) May 22nd, 2010 - 01:45 am Report abuse
Jorge.... 'You know nothing about what's going on in Argentine economy'
Oh yes we do ... I'm in BA... I read your papers.. I shop in your shops... your economy is stuffed... your leaders are corrupt...

and lets not forget the clearance paper I had from the Prefectura in Mar del Plata 3 weeks ago... 'when leaving Argentinian waters.. ie when arriving in Punta del Este , Punta Arenas or the Malvinas....'

at least they are realists.......
25 nevermoretheraven (#) May 22nd, 2010 - 07:26 am Report abuse
article 5 of the NATO treaty states an attack against one is an attack against all...the falkland islands are british territory, the u.s. military will intervene in any conflict where argentina is the aggressor. let me assure you, with the democrats about to lose the house of representatives and see their power reduced in the senate, they will be looking for a reason to demostrate their resolve. in addition, the u.s. military establishment has had just about enough of hugo chavez, a little demonstration of u.s. military capabilities might just be what he needs to see before he invites the russians into our hemi-sphere. da silva should mind his step also.
26 NicoDin (#) May 22nd, 2010 - 11:28 am Report abuse
Oh my god!

Are we going again trough all this crap about the BGM109 Tomahawk, Polaris, Trident 52 Kilotons nuclear power and the arrow of Elizabeth II.

If we have a really serious confrontation and even though you would be absolutely right that we don’t have even a gram of AMO.

Argentina in a week will rearm its self from several sources that you cannot control or have any influence like China, Russia and others.

Can you send me Mr. Mendeleiev some fast delivery please:

50 Su-35BM
200 missiles medium range

10 Intercontinental ballistic (just in case Brits Bobos think to go nuclear)

10.000 AK 47 and amo

5 nuclear sub

How much 20bn ok would you like payment in cash or check.

Bay, bay Royal Navy fleet, Windsor Castle and F@land Islands.

That’s it.
27 J.A. Roberts (#) May 22nd, 2010 - 11:59 am Report abuse
Dream on Nico.

You might be able to source kit from Russia and China but even they will expect you to pay for it - and you don't have any money...
28 zethe (#) May 22nd, 2010 - 10:58 pm Report abuse
NicoDin, that statement is funny in so many ways.

America is notorious for now allowing Russia or china any influence in south America. they would come down on your nation like nothing you would believe, not because of Britain, but because Russian equipment is being shipped within close range to American territory.

Plus, 20 billion? that will only take your military about 25 years to afford that.

British current defense spending is 30 times more than yours.

and if you think Britain does not have influence then you are wrong, the royal navy is the second most powerful navy in the world. one of only three blue water navy's in the world(that means we can project power anywhere, falklands are a prime example of this).

The Russian navy is in bits, i wouldn't trust their equipment.
29 NicoDin (#) May 23rd, 2010 - 03:30 am Report abuse
@zethe

1- Like US did when the Russian shipped Suhoi, missiles, Helicopters, AK 47, AMO, etc. to Venezuela?
www.youtube.com/watch?v=qfMjlEE-dIE&feature=related

2- There is not country in the world with influence over Argentina, you should be thinking about Britain.

3- UK defense expenditure is 480bn (year) a scam for the result UK gets and the army that has, I think someone is cheating the poor Brits.

And budget and spending is not equal to have a good Military Force in fat most of this budget goes to contractors like UK’s BAE Systems. Is the only winner here I guess.

UK’s Army is today class B type in the world and in the next years with the cuts will suffer will become class C. UK will not be able to defend itself from Zimbabwe in the future.

4- If the RN is the 2nd most powerful navy in the world and closer ally of US and have so many influence in the world, etc.

Can you tell me how UK lost 3 wars against Argentina and was close to loose 4.

And why both could not take control over Iraq and also both are loosing in Afghanistan a poor country that cannot afford to buy food or has a proper army?

Or Argentina is military superpower or you live in Disneyland in a complete state of denial.

Think about it, someone is cheating you like with your economy.

Regards,
30 zethe (#) May 23rd, 2010 - 03:44 am Report abuse
2- There is not country in the world with influence over Argentina

Really? yet Britain holds the islands you claim so dearly. that's influence.

3- UK defense expenditure is 480bn (year) a scam for the result UK gets and the army that has, I think someone is cheating the poor Brits.

Actually, it's 60 billion a year.

“And budget and spending is not equal to have a good Military Force in fat most of this budget goes to contractors like UK’s BAE Systems. Is the only winner here I guess.”
Wrong, infact BAE have often discussed leaving the UK because they do not get sole ownership of military deals.

Also, the British military are considered the the best trained military on the planet, the SAS are the role model for 90% of the worlds special forces.

The SAS trained your military 10 years before the falklands war.

“UK’s Army is today class B type in the world and in the next years with the cuts will suffer will become class C. UK will not be able to defend itself from Zimbabwe in the future. ”
Class b? The British military is one of the most advanced military's in the world. if you are classing this by numbers, you would do well to note that even when the British empire controlled 1/4th of the entire world, we had the smallest land army of all nations. thats how we work.

“And why both could not take control over Iraq and also both are loosing in Afghanistan a poor country that cannot afford to buy food or has a proper army?”

If you spent any time looking into the situation you would know this for yourself, america is the current superpower of the world, and they are having trouble in iraq, do you think any other nation would do better? of course not.
31 Hoytred (#) May 23rd, 2010 - 07:38 am Report abuse
“ ... Can you tell me how UK lost 3 wars against Argentina and was close to loose 4....”

We are always playing Away, you are always at Home .... of course we don't have to worry about the turf!
32 NicoDin (#) May 24th, 2010 - 04:15 am Report abuse
@zethe

1- “Really? yet Britain holds the islands you claim so dearly. that's influence.”

Thank you very much indeed, by your recognition that the Islands are territories owned legally by Argentina.

But this is not influence, the Egyptian took control by force of you Suez channel and Anglo-French companies by force and kept them until now.

So Egypt has influence over UK?

2- You are right here I mean 48bn as is 2.4% of your GDP my mistake with the “0”.

3-“Wrong, infact BAE have often discussed leaving the UK because they do not get sole ownership of military deals” really we call this lobby to avoid cuts in defense expending.

4- “The SAS trained your military 10 years before the falklands war”

Do you mean these guys en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentine_Marine_Corps?
These guys en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amphibious_Commandos_Group

These ones may be?
i40.tinypic.com/zxnogj.jpg
i40.tinypic.com/wqyqhj.jpg
i40.tinypic.com/fegw7n.jpg
i42.tinypic.com/jtw0sp.jpg
i43.tinypic.com/aw2sup.jpg
i42.tinypic.com/24c5dmp.jpg
i39.tinypic.com/34pj12b.jpg
i41.tinypic.com/ra9t84.jpg
i40.tinypic.com/y15pe.jpg
i41.tinypic.com/4uezcm.jpg

We have so many tactics especial groups like SAS you got only five, I would like to know who your were training, really. Any link please?
33 zethe (#) May 24th, 2010 - 08:21 am Report abuse
“Thank you very much indeed, by your recognition that the Islands are territories owned legally by Argentina.”
Never said that, read it again. I said we have something you claim, not something you own.

So Egypt has influence over UK?

No actually, it was America who threatened to flood the market with the pound, dropping it's value, so we was forced to do as the Americans wanted.

America had influence over the UK.

“We have so many tactics especial groups like SAS you got only five, I would like to know who your were training, really. Any link please?”

Yeah, but how good are they, really? it's possible that they trained most of them. The SAS are considered the best in the world, they help train a lot of troops.
34 LegionNi (#) May 24th, 2010 - 08:56 am Report abuse
33 Nicodin “1- “Really? yet Britain holds the islands you claim so dearly. that's influence.”

Thank you very much indeed, by your recognition that the Islands are territories owned legally by Argentina.”

Does the word “Claim” translate as “Ownership” in Spanish then? This does appear to be how Argentines seem to translate it. I have Claimed that so I own it!!!

Its truely pathetic. Like a five year old seeing a toy someone else has and screaming, “MINE! MINE! MINE! MINE!” and throwing a tantram.

As to the Suez Cannal and Eygpt having influence over the UK, your understanding of the issues here is clearly limited.

Britain had just fought a 2nd world war that had all but bankrupted its Empire. We were heavily in debt to America, and it was America that used their influence, i.e. pull out or we call in our loans, to make Britain end the Seuz operation.

Seriously Nicodin read up on the history of Suez incident before you comment. Was there nothing on YouTube for you to use?
35 ivo (#) May 24th, 2010 - 09:44 am Report abuse
NicoDin... you discuss with Brits in vain ..

Britons are nothing..

Dutchs and Russians all have manipulated them throughout history ...
36 NicoDin (#) May 24th, 2010 - 02:38 pm Report abuse
@zethe

1- “Never said that, read it again. I said we have something you claim, not something you own”

I know perfectly what you said and implies 2 things or we are the legal owners or we have much influence over UK and others countries that support us and also that we had invaded Britain. Did we?

What of these is your acceptable answer mate?
If you consider that the Island are part of UK, so we had invade UK is that simply my friend.

If you don’t consider part of UK that means that is some else territory let’s say our territory.

2- “So Egypt has influence over UK?” is the same example they still hold those assets and get away with it. These are the facts and to make my point US could not stop us to retake the Island in 1982 way could with Britain? Are you so weak?

3-“America had influence over the UK” I know but not over us we don’t care about US and if they plunge whatever they want. The real fact was the US president call your PM and said in polite way “we gonna rule now we own you and we don’t want to mess up with the Russian, get it?”

4- “Yeah, but how good are they, really?” As good to retake the Island from you with 84 tactical Buzos, that was the special force that made surrendered your RM. The rest of the troops came 2 hours later as they were in the sea.

“# B. 23:00 1 April - The first group of 84 men lands on an unnamed beach at Lake Point. The group splits into a smaller force led by Lieutenant-Commander Giachino which heads towards Government House, and a larger force commanded by Lieutenant-Commander Sabarots which heads towards Moody Brook barracks.
# C. 04:30 2 April - A small advanced team of the Tactical Divers Group is landed undetected from the Submarine... .
# D. 05:30 2 April - Lieutenant-Commander Sabarots' force reaches and surrounds the barracks. They throw tear gas grenades into the buildings and storm the buildings with heavy machine gun fire...

wapedia.mobi/en/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands?t=8.

Regards,
37 zethe (#) May 24th, 2010 - 09:40 pm Report abuse
I didn't understand your first paragraph.

“US could not stop us to retake the Island in 1982”
They never tried? They offered to help as the US officers thought it to be an impossibility to retake territory so far from home, but we refused the help. We wanted to show that we could do this by ourselves.

84 tactical Buzos - LOL yeah, this grand force who bravely stormed the base. Bullet holes in the walls, tear gas used...the base was empty, what were they shooting?

Even the tale of how the RM surrender shows how terrible your military was. You lost an APC and your commander died along with a few of his men.

THEN, after the RM's surrendered, two of your men came out of their hiding place(not knowing the surrender had happened), after hearing gunfire they dropped their arms and surrendered, the first prisoners of war in the Falklands conflict were two Argentinian men who surrendered to a group of RM who had already surrendered, lmao.
38 Rhaurie-Craughwell (#) May 25th, 2010 - 11:31 pm Report abuse
Argie I commend you for offering a very much different and although I may disagree rabidly I find myself compelled to actually respect your sentiments, I shall offer my perspective on the Lexington affair.

Much as though you may feel the term pirate is appropriate, the vessel in question in was a US warship under orders from it's respective government to defend what it reckoned to be it's own citizens under attack, now you would whole heatedly agree that any government has a duty to defend it's own citizens regardless? I give you pretty accurate to the date reports by Silas Duncan: www.ussduncan.org/silas_page13.htm I would kindly ask that you study them before offhandley dismissing anyone and anything who against Argentina in any manner as a “Pirate”.

As for sheer “piracy” in all other British overseas territories I see that you are attempting to apply todays standards to yesterdays action, whether you find it morally repulsive or not that was the order of the day back then, harsh though it was colonialism and might is right was the norm of the day, human nature changes better of for worst it would not be too unreasonable to assume that 100 years our descendants shall remark in disgust and ridicule at some early 21st century political concept, thought or action.

To condemn every British overseas territory as some act of “piracy” is to condemn your own fortune of existence, it was by no act of friendship or diplomacy that some of the worlds earliest and first cultures fell victim to Spanish rule, and thus allowed for the predominately European societies to emerge in the America's.

My point being , is that we should not rectify every action or event because we feel it is appropriate, much as though I try to see the Argentine viewpoint, I feel that there is something morally repugnant about trying to deny nationhood and national rights to a people who have existed for 180 years for what I see as no more than an attempt to right a slight to national ego.....
39 NicoDin (#) May 26th, 2010 - 01:41 am Report abuse
@Rhaurie-Craughwell

Your call for moral action counts nothing here as never counts, where is the moral of UK when invading Iraq (this is in modern time not 100 yeas ago) and Afghanistan?.

So don’t be hypocrite and lets face the reality the ability to defend your self is the rule in the world else we should be under the boot of US, UK, Spain, etc. or you should be under our boot. Who knows?

Britain appeals to morality and law when its has not the ability to defend itself or pursuits it will.

“people who have existed for 180 years for what I see as no more than an attempt to right a slight to national ego”

Iraqis have been from the times of Sumeria (the oldest civilization in the world) there and you didn’t care at all so why should will for 180 years?

So whatever you say make the point of the Islander weaker, can you see?

Moral is something that you never got in UK and especially in your Region Scotland when during the industrial revolution you were using children in your factories were 30% of them ended up with member looses and Arm amputations.

And you want to teach us about your high moral standard mate?

Please choose another subject because in this you don’t qualify by any mean.


Regards,
40 Idlehands (#) May 26th, 2010 - 09:24 am Report abuse
How many disappeared and were murdered in Argentina in the 1970s?
How many babies were stolen and given to others while their parents were murdered?

The Falklands should not be discussed with any sense of moral superiority - to do so makes you look silly.
41 Rhaurie-Craughwell (#) May 26th, 2010 - 12:55 pm Report abuse
Nicotine:

Thank you for your completely off hand diatribe, that was not directed at yourself,

We are not talking about Iraq or Afghanistan, please do try to stick to the argument rather than branching out to different issues in an attempt to somehow demean British moral arguments in to tacitly justify Argentina’s morally incorrect ambitions for the islands, debating gets wholly tedious otherwise and turns into a mud slinging match with each side dredging up historical examples of morally questionable actions to try and demean the others arguments.

“The rule of the world is the ability to defend yourself” you seem to be alluding that world events are governed by that now defunct theory called realism? The concept that attempted to explain the apparent anarchy of International relations, if this concept had any relevance, why does Argentina you need to rely on other south American countries to support it’s claim to the islands? Or indeed trying to explain why countries embark upon UN humanitarian projects with zero benefits to themselves? In fact the whole existence of the UN calls into question “The rule of the world is the ability to defend yourself”.

As for your smear with reference to Lanarkshire, look at my argument again, and thanks for proving that you are judging past historical action with an arrogant sense of moral righteousness in an attempt to cancel out the massive moral flaws of your argument in relation to the Falklanders which fail utterly by todays standards. Life was brutal and short back in those times boo hoo, I do not see you offering any constructive criticism of how Argentina became a majority white European state in a continent previously populated by dark skinned dark haired indigenous cultures?

I fail to see how your appeal to past historical injustices somehow equals denying basic human rights to the Islanders, or even how it makes my arguments look weak?

In light of Argentina’s less than fluffy past and colonial origins not only does
42 NicoDin (#) May 26th, 2010 - 12:59 pm Report abuse
@Idlehands,
I never claimed to be the moral award wining in anything.
On the contrary Mr. Rhaurie resort to this.
And by the way what moral has your UK by sending troops to kill inicent people in the middle est or went started the wars of opium, or in Afghanistan, etc.?

So your moral sucks as the military from the junta

The difference between you and me is that I'm not Hypocrite and washed head like you Mr. Idlehands.

Your politician are corrupted as any other in the world at least we speak and recognize the fact openly while you are in eternal denial.

May be you find hard to recognize the truth.

When a society is free clash with the govt. especially like the type of govt. you have in Britain. The problem is that you are a docile society and can be pushed the cliff and while you govt. push you you sing “God save the queen”.

We do not do that even by force, so military junta has to use force to control the population you don't need that, your education was thought to do the job.

Your politicians & co wash your head since ever, your education is like that. See the Americans and you will have a mirror of you own British society.

regards,
43 Idlehands (#) May 26th, 2010 - 01:16 pm Report abuse
Great post.

Line 1 you claim not to make comments relating to morals and then in line 3 you start attacking our morals - and then 2 lines later call me a hypocrite!!!!!

The rest is just a childlike anti British rant.

NB What's a washed head? - other than a head that has been washed??
44 LegionNi (#) May 26th, 2010 - 02:08 pm Report abuse
I think he is referring to the term Brain Washed. A term that can be more applied to many Argentines on this forum with one exception.
45 zethe (#) May 26th, 2010 - 05:52 pm Report abuse
NicoDin, iraq was wrong, yes. There is no excuse for that, but in the end i truly think we did a good thing for the iraqi's, saddam was an evil man who used to let his children rape any women they so wished. They can now run their own country.

Afghanistan i believe we do have a right to be there, i don't quite get how you are comparing it to the Falklands because it's a completely different type of war. You wanted to take and keep the islands, we are merely trying to get rid of the terrorists, we aren't there to impost British rule.

We aren't at war with Iraq, we are at war with the terrorists.

our reasons? 9/11? the london underground bombings? the many many other terrorists attacks which have been stopped by MI5?
46 jorge! (#) May 26th, 2010 - 11:33 pm Report abuse
Frank, just because you were here, it doesn't make you an expert on argentine issues, so shut up!!!!!!!!

LegionNi, you being a “brain”washed british should not talk about brainwashing of others, it makes you look like an idiot!!!!!!
47 NicoDin (#) May 27th, 2010 - 01:11 am Report abuse
@zethe

1- “NicoDin, iraq was wrong, yes” ok good to hear that with start to understand each other.

2-“end i truly think we did a good thing for the iraqi's” no mate you just ruined your first statement.
This is pure British arrogance.

Let me show you please “well in the end was good for the British that Argentina’s air force sunk half of her fleet, this make them to see their failure and weakness in the air defense” what about some kind of thank you Argentina?

Have you got it?

You shouldn’t be there in the first place.

“Afghanistan...” the same you are there to size power and control over a strategic corridor Europa/Asia.

Zethe you cannot really believe all that lies from UK imperialist policy that had devastated Asia, Africa, Middle East, etc.

And why do you think terrorist attack you?

If your country bomb, mine, kill my fellows, etc. I personally will go to your country and I will kill your royal family, PM and what ever British target I get in my sight. What do you expect a greeting card from Buenos Aires?

If you don’t want to be the target of terrorist don’t involve your self in other countries business my best advice and it’s free.

Think about it

Regards,
48 Hoytred (#) May 27th, 2010 - 06:45 am Report abuse
“ ... If you don’t want to be the target of terrorist don’t involve your self in other countries business my best advice and it’s free.... ”.

Good advice ... Argentina should remember it when it tries to involve itself in Falklands business :-)
49 LegionNi (#) May 27th, 2010 - 08:40 am Report abuse
47 jorge “LegionNi, you being a “brain”washed british should not talk about brainwashing of others, it makes you look like an idiot!!!!!!”

Coming from you Jorge that comment is just laugh out load funny.
50 Idlehands (#) May 27th, 2010 - 08:47 am Report abuse
Weren't the Iranians found to be responsible for the bombing of Jewish targets in Argentina in the 1990s?

You really should keep your noses out of Iranian business.
51 stick up your junta (#) May 27th, 2010 - 10:43 am Report abuse
Argentina’s air force sunk half of her fleet

We would of sunk all off the Argie fleet if they had come out to play
Gotcha there
52 ivo (#) May 27th, 2010 - 01:40 pm Report abuse
@49,50,51,52 these are the editor's comments by different names....
53 zethe (#) May 27th, 2010 - 04:15 pm Report abuse
2-“end i truly think we did a good thing for the iraqi's” no mate you just ruined your first statement.

Let me show you please “well in the end was good for the British that Argentina’s air force sunk half of her fleet, this make them to see their failure and weakness in the air defense” what about some kind of thank you Argentina?

Sigh, Not British arrogance, America did most of the work.

You really don't understand about the outside world, do you? The british army TRAINED the iraq army, worked with them. The two wars were not against afghanistan and iraq(nations) they were against two terrorist organisations. We didn't kill Saddam Husein, we captured him and gave him to his people as a prisoner, THEY killed him.

I've admitted our reasons for going there were wrong, HOWEVER, we have given that country democracy over a evil dictator who used to rape and mass murder his people, that's a good thing.

He was convicted of crimes against humanity and sentenced to hang, by his own people.


If you don’t want to be the target of terrorist don’t involve your self in other countries business my best advice and it’s free.”

Again, you fail to understand the outside world. 9/11 happened before the war's, so did the london underground bombing if im correct.

London was also the target for serveral large(one plot involved 7 planes in a 9/11 style attack) A few years before 9/11. But the secret service(m15) stopped them before they could do this. Which is why after 9/11 the only plane to enter the USA was a plane from london with m15 agents.

At the end of the day the United kingdom will not accept attacks on us, from anyone. We've proven this over and over in history.
54 NicoDin (#) May 27th, 2010 - 06:27 pm Report abuse
@zethe

You have gave me a wonderful Idea, why not to invade Britain to give some freedom and real democracy to UK?

Do you think that can we count on the Talibans, Iraqis, Palestinians, Iranis, North Korean, Vietnamese, Pakistanis, etc. to accomplish the job?

Anyway you are already invaded by the Pakistanis, Africans, Jamaican, Asian, etc. may be no force would be necessary.

Cheers,
55 zethe (#) May 27th, 2010 - 09:22 pm Report abuse
“You have gave me a wonderful Idea, why not to invade Britain to give some freedom and real democracy to UK?”

We have one, The houses of parliament are the mother of parliaments, The empire helped to spread democracy through the world, and is currently the longest running parliament system in the world.

I have no doubt that your basis for that comment is because we have a queen, You know yourself that it's a cheap comment.

Many country's have a royal family but none of the royals run nations anymore. It shows our country's heritage and history.

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!

Advertisement

Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!