Falkland Islands: Tussac planted in place of mines
OVER the course of two weekends Falklands Conservation staff and volunteers led by Dr Rebecca Upson, Falklands Conservation’s Plant and Habitats Officer, have carried out restoration work on two sites recently cleared of mines.
With the help of 20 volunteers, tussac grass was planted on coastal peat at the Canache side of the Surf Bay former minefield SA- 008. In contrast bluegrass was planted on the sand dunes within the same mine-cleared area.
This work has occurred because soil erosion is a major concern across the Falkland Islands for farmers and conservationists alike. Coastal areas are particularly vulnerable and require urgent attention.
In some coastal areas it is appropriate to plant tussac, and many such projects have and are currently taking place across the Islands. At other sites where the ground has eroded to sand or clay, tussac planting is not appropriate.
Restoration trials are therefore needed to develop methods for reclaiming large areas which are currently devoid of vegetation. It is in this context that Falklands Conservation is working with the Falkland Islands Government to carry out restoration trials on recently cleared minefields.
The data gathered will be used to inform best practices at other sites. (PN)
Suggested Stories
-
Feb 10th 2012
Antigua and Barbuda deny supporting bar on Falklands flagged vessels
-
Feb 10th 2012
Timerman on Friday formalizes at UN complaint against UK ‘militarization’ of Malvinas dispute
-
Feb 10th 2012
State Department ratifies Falklands’ dispute is a bilateral Argentina/UK issue
-
Feb 09th 2012
Chilean community in Falklands march in support of the air link with Santiago
175 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. Thank you.
[less not forget]
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/britain-south-gibraltar
londonistan is crying waiting the cuts. cuts for working class people.
The article you refer to makes no real point but is consistent with the left wing minor newspaper that has published it.
We must be desperate for a thread if we're writing on an article about 'grass' ! Too quiet on the Falkland front eh :-)
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/britain-south-gibraltar
“ Britain struggles with mounting health and pension bills. At the same time budgets will have to be squeezed so that we can start paying back the stimulus-induced surge in debt.
And while we draw down forces from Helmand can we really justify having a thousand men count penguins in the Falklands' freezing squalls? Even the race for oil in and around the South Pole should perhaps be left to those able to gamble with billions.”
I'm sure :-)
Clearing these minefields means that Falklands Conservation can now undertake the restoration work they're waiting 28 years to do. It also means that the people of Fox Bay, West Falkland can finally visit the cemetery again and clean up 28 years of neglect.
Something positive.
Hey dumb and dumber together again, harrier61 and briton
its better than being a coward and a supporter of murder of there own people, you plant mines in the falklands then walk waway knowing inocent people are getting killed, MARCO you are nothing short of a disgrace to mankind, vermin like you will die a lonly and bitter man, with nothing but your guilt for comfort, dumb we may be, but i will leave the stupid bit to you.,,long live the falklands
He cleverly forgets to mention two key facts about the Falklands, a) It's purpose and B) It's Cost.
A) It's purpose is a deterrent force to thuggish little South American bullies who have illusions of being a world power.
B) It only costs £60 million per year to station troops and maintain the aircraft and equipment.
Conclusion the author knows jack and is just creating an opinion with little logic other than he doesn't like Tories doing well in government so be-littles things which he reckons people with opposite political affiliations would hold dear.
You dear Marco just latched onto it because he says what you want to hear and adds credibility and reaffirms that Anglo-phobic/Racist streak in you :),
I don't see you posting any articles not supporting this most glorious of all causes for God, Peron and La Parrot-Tree!
Your nation was built on the blood of its indians ..... makes you no different to anyone else. Trying to claim the high moral ground just proves that you're dumbest!
Hoyt, Stop making lame excuses!!! Admit when you and your Government policies there were and there are wrong!
The British Empire was Great at a time when all others were looking to empire too. Was it right? Well, in the context of that time yes. You were either a winner or a loser. Was it wrong? Well, in the context of our time, yes. Evil deeds were done.
Now grow up !
Now that you so correctly defined evil deeds standards in the context of time, I have a question about history. (your favourite subject):
This “1850 Convention of Settlement” so often mentioned in here.
A little ”detail” jumps in front of my eyes...
Is it not true that between 1845 and 1849 Britain and France, the two greatest superpowers of the world at the time, blockaded, attacked and tried to topple the Argentinean government and invaded Uruguay?
At least that is what your own “Westminster Review” says:
“For nearly four years we kept a squadron there, seldom consisting of less than a dozen ships, to cooperate with the similar force mantained by the French; yet, after all our trouble and lavish expenditure, we concluded a treaty in 1849, which was only a diplomatic avowal of the failure of our intervention.” Westmister review, page 165
I knew a Yank once.... A smoker.... He proudly used an old engraved Zippo from Vietnam ....The inscription was:
“Let US win your hearts and minds or we’ll burn your damn huts down.”
In short, this “Convention of Settlement” was obviously forced on Argentina, signed under military coercion and that renders it invalid Yesterday, Today or Tomorrow.
Ps:
About your mention of the “Malvinas” opinion of Prof. Carlos Escudé
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People
It is, using your words, an opinion that contains, in my opinion, some element of truth, some undocumented asseverations and some “old” economical/political facts, drastically altered in Feb.2010 by the Malvinas Oil Prospection.
Please note also that I am not accusing this man of being “paid by the CIA” or “working for a minor rightist insignificant paper” or being an ”ignorant Moron” or so many other niceties your side excel in using when trying to discredit your own critics.
What a load of tosh Think! Anyway, Argentina could have fought on to the death... but instead they signed the piece of paper and that's the end of it.
Where it suits you like to boast of your Spanish antecedents. Conveniently forgetting such happy actions of your ancestors as the genocide of the Aztecs and Incas and, more recently, the so-called Conquest of the Desert where your “country” set out to subdue and exterminate the indigenous people.
You have no justification for any claim to the moral high ground as it was your ancestors who were amongst the founders of the slave trade. The existence of any peoples in South America or the Caribbean with African ancestry can be traced to Spanish and Portuguese slavers. But it was Britain that abolished slavery!
The list of crimes of your ancestors is not endless only because history has not yet ended. But you can lay claim to continuing your atrocities into the late 20th century.
Now that you so correctly defined evil deeds standards in the context of time, I have a question about history. (your favourite subject):
This “1850 Convention of Settlement” so often mentioned in here.
A little ”detail” jumps in front of my eyes...
Is it not true that between 1845 and 1849 Britain and France, the two greatest superpowers of the world at the time, blockaded, attacked and tried to topple the Argentinean government and invaded Uruguay?
At least that is what your own “Westminster Review” says:
“For nearly four years we kept a squadron there, seldom consisting of less than a dozen ships, to cooperate with the similar force mantained by the French; yet, after all our trouble and lavish expenditure, we concluded a treaty in 1849, which was only a diplomatic avowal of the failure of our intervention.” Westmister review, page 165
I knew a Yank once.... A smoker.... He proudly used an old engraved Zippo from Vietnam ....The inscription was:
“Let US win your hearts and minds or we’ll burn your damn huts down.”
In short, this “Convention of Settlement” was obviously forced on Argentina, signed under military coercion and that renders it invalid Yesterday, Today or Tomorrow.
Ps:
About your mention of the “Malvinas” opinion of Prof. Carlos Escudé
en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People
It is, using your words, an opinion that contains, in my opinion, some element of truth, some undocumented asseverations and some “old” economical/political facts, drastically altered in Feb.2010 by the Malvinas Oil Prospection.
Please note also that I am not accusing this man of being “paid by the CIA” or “working for a minor rightist insignificant paper” or being an ”ignorant Moron” or so many other niceties your side excel in using when trying to discredit your own critics.
I told you were a bias racist bastard! Do I see you extolling any positive virtues that the Empire installed? NAy because it does not fit with your inherently negative Anglophobic bias, you have an inherent psychological need to view Britain as a negative entity, come on less of the bias and more rational thought you won't look so daft.
Out of Curiosity how often is the clearance of the desert and Chacos and the
genocide of indigenous cultures in Argentina taught? If every Argentine Acknowledged that then you would see the absolute Hypocrisy of claiming the Falklands was stolen :)
Not true Think. If that was the case just about every treaty in history would be invalid. Just another of your red herrings...
Now come on Think .... what treaties does Argentina have with some of its smaller neighbours? And are those treaties equal in application?
You are too old to be this naive, For much of man's history the term 'might is right' has applied. Now whether that is 'right' or 'wrong' is a philosophical question that will run forever.
“ ... Please note also that I am not accusing this man of being “paid by the CIA” or “working for a minor rightist insignificant paper” or being an ”ignorant Moron”...”
Good, I would have asked you to back it up ... strange though, is it a socialist trait to accuse those you don't agree with of being paid by the CIA? It always makes me laugh.
Actually I know nothing other than he wrote a piece and that he is a prominent Argentine academic. Well thought of .... but that's all I've picked up from the great God Wiki!
As for whether recent events have altered the situation, well no ..... have you read his piece?
You say:
To a large extent Treaties are forced upon someone.... that doesn't actually make it any the less binding in international law. How many treaties have been signed after a war where someone lost?
I say:
And that is the kind of “Treaties” that usually return as a Boomerang and hit the “Winners” when the balance of power shifts.
And that is why all the “Treaties” and “Agreements” signed by Argentina in the last 28 years are based in pure negotiation and not armed coercion.
And because Argentina was militarily forced to sign that “Treaty” in 1849; It has the right to disregard and repudiate every single word of it, anytime.
And because Britain forced that “treaty” on Argentina, It has no right to get “upset” when such a “treaty” is repudiated.
This is the base of modern diplomacy...
All the “military muscle” rubbish belongs to the past or to the “big fiascos case” as Iraq and Afghanistan so clearly demonstrate.
Think - Who is upset? A few punters here use the 1850 Treaty as a means of proving a state of mind, and in particular the Argentine state of mind regarding the Falkland Islands following 1850. I doubt the British Government cares very much!
In theory any Treaty signed under coersion is invalid, but that's not the reality is it. If it was it would put paid to the majority. As for your, “ ...all the “Treaties” and “Agreements” signed by Argentina in the last 28 years are based in pure negotiation...” is the usual crock of shit. Negotiation yes, but were the parties equal in the process. Military might is only one way of applying pressure. As I said, you are not this naive, or you should not be at least.
“ ... All the “military muscle” rubbish belongs to the past ....”
Ah, the utopian society. Tell me why then the US spends billions on its armed forces, why both Russia and China have recently announced increases to their 'defence' budgets, why Iran want a nuclear capability and, it is suspected, Burma too.
So much easier to negotiate on anything when the muscle is behind you. Right or wrong becomes irrelevant. It is the way of things.
What's that biblical quote, “ and the meek shall inherit the earth .... if no-one objects” :-)
Reality - Think
Military Coercion is a stupid, primitive, antiquated, destructive, un-cool, expensive, ineffective and unproductive way of redistributing wealth.
Economical Coercion is the way to go...
Some call it Free Market...that’s our strategy on Malvinas.
Wasn’t it your mate and neighbour “Deep Sea Diver” that said that it was the Free Market that gave both the rich and the poor equal rights of starving to death?
Magic Reality- Hoyt
Economic Coercion
Psychological Coercion
It's all 'muscle', or as the Great God Wiki says,
” ... Coercion is the practice of forcing another party to behave in an involuntary manner (whether through action or inaction) by use of threats, intimidation, trickery, or some other form of pressure or force...”
Not sure where the high moral ground is in any of that?
As for your strategy, it is doomed to failure. Britain is, even in the depths of this crisis, simply richer than Argentina. Now that's the way 'Free' market economics operate :-)
And of course GB is much richer than Argentina....
And because they want to continue being it, they will invest wisely...
“Bad business” will be abandoned...
We must make sure that the South Atlantic becomes a “bad business”.
Nice and easy....
And because Britain forced that “treaty” on Argentina, It has no right to get “upset” when such a “treaty” is repudiated.”
You can prove these statements of course? With reliable sources?
“ ... second type of lie is also perversely naïve. It proposes to increase
the British costs of remaining in the Falklands, without taking
account of the fact that in order to increase the British costs one must
augment the Argentine costs, and without realizing that Britain has
infinitely more economic, diplomatic and military resources than
Argentina. There is no way of making Britain “spend more” without
Argentina herself spending more as well. And the increased British
costs will always represent a much smaller percentage of total British
resources, than the increased Argentine costs vis-à-vis total Argentine
resources. Thus, increasing the British costs of not transferring
sovereignty is necessarily a worse deal for Argentina than for Britain.
And last but not least, these increased costs to Argentina will be felt
much more dramatically by Argentina’s increasingly poor masses
than by the well-off elites who would profit emotionally and
politically from such a reckless policy....”
Must be foresight ...... or is this something that was tried before ??
:-)
We are nos spending a dime on it.
The first words say otherwise :-)
I am not denying anything of the past of my country, including the war of 1982 by our drunk dictator(wich I opposed), the comment on top and now below is my point of view, share with many around the world and UK itself. Do not play the race card when you don't like the truth.
“The monarchy, and the British Empire are built on theft, bloodshed and murder. The link between Great Britain, Africa, slavery, India, Afghanistan and many other ugly truths manifesting themselves in some form today, tends not to be widely taught in the UK. The result is that many people, even citizens of England live in absolute ignorance about how their country became a power in the world”
So true!
I wonder how many Argentine school chldren are taught what really happened during the Conquista del Desierto?
And as for Think's fantasy, if coercion is enough to nullify a Treaty, then Argentina should really be handing back all of the territory south of the Río Negro back to Chile...
So true!
And each and every Argentine is responsible.
“@32. Argentina's history is based on lies, torture, bloodshed, murder, genocide, double-dealing, dishonesty and more lies”.
Till this day 99% of argentines deny their country involvement with Nazi Germany. They invaded the Falklands w/ out warning or undeclared war. But they whine against the islanders and Britain for kicking their arses out. Twenty eight years at the UN and now at the UNASUR with the same old propaganda. Any result?...No, because they don’t a legitimate reason for their claim. Centuries will pass, generations will come and go, the world will end…Disgusting!!
Mmmm, is not the repulsion of the French and British squadrons usually trumpeted as a great Argentine victory? So now a treaty concluded after a great Argentine victory was coerced?
I'm confused is it a great victory or did you get your arses kicked?
The thing that gets me, is that whenever the Argentine claims are exposed to be false, fake or unfounded, they just invent new excuses. Coercion thats a new one.
Can we have Port Desire back please, you see Spain coerced Britain into relinquishing Port Desire, so we have the right to disregard and repudiate every single word, anytime .... apparently.
Does this mean Chile gets its Patagonian territory back? The territory that Argentina coerced Chile into giving up whilst it was engaged in the War of the Pacific.
Does this mean Paraguay gets its territory back? Liquidating 99% of the male population of Paraguay and then taking half the country in the peace treaty seems pretty coercive to me.
When do you plan on handing Patagonia back, genocide seems damn coercive to me.
After all it just seems fair, if you can repudiate any treaty that you can invent an excuse as to why your were coerced.
I understand your comment concerning Argentina trying to make the Falklands a “bad business” for the UK. Basically what you are saying is to make the UK spend more money that is it willing to, on the Falkland Islands, and by your past comments, I assume it is by “economic coercion”, using such techniques as a economic blockade. But the only money that the UK spends on the Falklands is on the military garrison. For Argentina to make the Falklands a “bad business” for the UK surely then is through military means...which is something that you have dismissed as a possibility. Am I misunderstanding your ramblings, or is there something I am missing? Or have you made the same mistake that every other Argentine that the Falklands is a colony and recieves payments from the UK. If you have, your thought process is heavily flawed.
Also, I have enjoyed how the Argentines on Mercopress has dragged this Tussac planting story into a wonderful “Malvinas son Argentinas” debate.
You say: ”I understand your comment concerning”..........
I say: Obviously; you DO NOT understand my comments........
You say: ”Am I misunderstanding your ramblings, or is there something I am missing?”
I say: Yes , you are misunderstanding........Yes, there is a lot you are missing......
As a latin descendent myself, I relate more to Julius Cesar than the rest of the hybrid race that form ALL of Latinamerican countries. At least he was a fighter, later a General and end up as one of the best Dictators that ruled the Roman Empire. Britain, England was under the Roman Empire for about 400 years. They have those roman genes flowing in their blood. The have an excellent combination with:
“The last centuries before the Roman invasion saw an influx of mixed Germanic-Celtic speaking refugees from Gaul (approximately modern day France and Belgium) known as the Belgae, who were displaced as the Roman Empire expanded around 50 BC. They settled along most of the coastline of Southern Britain between about 200 BC and AD 43. A Gaulish tribe known as the Parisii, who had cultural links to the continent, appeared in north-east England”.
You argentinians are a degenerated mix of NOTHING, you ain’t italian, neither spanish. You didn’t conquered anything, you’re a country of wanna- bes.
Now, you “hybrids” think that your bull is going to scare the British Empire away from the Falklands. You are messing around with the wrong people, you idiots !!
Someone has trawled my facebook account, collected the names of friends and relations in Argentina and has sent them a bunch of abusive messages for knowing me.
Who would do such a thing?
What do ya...think?
In fact if you want I could post to you all the list of Spanish Gov of the Malvinas from 1766 (date when was the devoltuion of Pt Saint Loius from France to Spain, The first setelltment made by France in 1764 (2 years BEFORE the first british landing) up to 1820. Let´s says 64 years. How many years u were there? 8 years. From 1766 to 1774. . So, what claims you can make? You resigned it defenitvly with Nootka convention in 1790. YOu had abandoned them for good .26 years before in 1774
What a waste of time, worrying about the Falkland Islands, defeated and kicked out more than 28 years ago. Wake up; get a life. Neither the Kirchner’s “monarchy “or the Venezuelan “gorilla” Chavez or any other populist Latinamerican government is going to help you to get the Falklands back. Get a life. Since august 1st, gas and electric power increased 93% in Argentina. Like the rest of Latinamerica it’s going down the tubes.
Right now there’re more than 3000 argentinians ready to be deported out of Arizona alone. Can you imagine how many thousands are scared to death around the U.S.?... I wonder why MercoPress doesn’t say anything about the suffering of Latinamerican people?...It seems than the only concern of the editor is about Mercosur and Unasur, I wonder why he/she doesn’t comment about the real crisis that poor Southamericans are suffering. Is Mercosur, after decades in place, making life better for the countries that are members?
www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jul/31/britain-south-gibraltar
Good morning Think, quite right .... boring!
That's bollocks Marco. John Strong landed in the Falklands in 1690.
Anyway, all those dates you quote are WAY before Argentina existed, so are completely IRRELEVANT to the Argentine claim.
Go back to Spain or Italy or wherever it is you come from!
Still, no news is good news :-)
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10847659
May I suggest the return of Islas Malvinas to the lawful owner(Republica Argentina). That will help to reduced the UK deficit.
www.dailynews.lk/2010/08/03/wld05.asp
As for cost cutting - we know who the Falkland Islands belong to ... they are British through and through.... so much so that we are looking at that new airport for St. Helena to help them out :-)
www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/an-airport-for-st-helena-too-late-for-napoleon-2033459.html
Quote from article above
“The islanders have campaigned for years for an airport, because their only contact with the outside world is a ship, the RMS St Helena, which does a regular run to and from Cape Town.
But the ship is due for the scrapheap”
Peter says below:”Spending £300m on an airport for an island with a population of 4,255, (2008), means that the airport is costing the British taxpayer over £70,000 per inhabitant. That is quite some subsidy considering the current economic situation in UK.”
Add a current population in the Falklands of 3000 (expected to rise to 10,000 apparently?) = 7,000 +
Add in the political / economic advantage of supporting the Falkland Islands which may (or indeed may not) have a lot of oil!
Add in the reduced access time to the Antartic claim and the future potential of that claim.
2 + 2 = 4 ( or maybe 6 if the future works out) :-)
Use that grey matter between your ears Marco. Why would a cash strapped Government even think about a new airport for 4,000 people ?
It's the bigger picture stupid!
Lots of entries since my bedtime..... lets see if something interesting came along.......
Hmmmmmm....
One (39) “Thinking” he is thr reencarnation of Julius Caesar.....
Another (43) being paranoid......
A third (47) still failing to appreciate one of Europe’s best papers (not only about Malvinas) and being polite. Good day to you to Sir.....
An then we end at the St Helena Airport Issue....
Who needs an £300 Million airfield?
When you have £13 Billion thingy like this:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future_Strategic_Tanker_Aircraft
Unless........:-)
I am so happy that you are enjoying the comments on that article of your own british, over that airport build just for you...here is another:
Peter wrote
”Spending £300m on an airport for an island with a population of 4,255, (2008), means that the airport is costing the British taxpayer over £70,000 per inhabitant. That is quite some subsidy considering the current economic situation in UK.
Once the airport is built supporters will want another £300m to build some hotels. After that they want £50m per year to advertise the place to try and persuade people that they want a very expensive holiday on a very remote, boring lump of rock. I suppose it could be advertised as being less unpleasant than holidaying in The Falklands.”
I hope you enjoy it Hoytred.
Marco - I am indeed enjoying all .. hotels, holidays? Still not seeing the bigger picture then? Sadly some of my countrymen are a bit thick too ! An ailment suffered by every nation perhaps :-)
You Say:
“I certainly am not a Guardian reader ... apparently you have to live in Argentina to fully apprecate it's view of the world!”
I say:
It does not look that way!:
www.bizreport.com/2008/09/abce_guardiancouk_britains_most_popular_online_newspaper.html#
No-one in the UK buys the thing!
You say:
“No-one in the UK buys the thing!”
I say:
Of course not!
Only Sun readers are that stupid...
You don't buy it, you just read it.
No educated person would waste money, time and resources for something you already have instantly free available.
Not to speak about the positive environmental effects of not using natural resources in the production, transport and distribution of a “physical” newspaper.
If you could give up so easily on the World’s Most Beautiful Language............Imagine then how simple it will to give those small islands up......
Remember: “Comments must be in English. Thank you”.
I'll try again tomorrow then :-)
Well English pirates use to sail around the world to steal land, national treasures, expelled local population like Malvinas Argentinas and Chagos Islands, and not to forget that they failed miserably twice to invade Buenos Aires. Now for the broke London Government, that failed in Irak (no WMD), is not capable to invade another nation again to steal .
So they try for the highly defended Antarctica!
The plans are already approved ...SIS has proof penguins are really terrorists in disguise.
Send theSAS....they eat penguins anyway
The first known landing was made in 1690 by a British naval captain, John Strong. He named the Islands after Viscount Falkland, who was his patron at the time and who shortly afterwards became First Lord of the Admiralty. The British Government has no doubt about Britain's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. With the exception of the 2 months of illegal occupation in 1982, the Falklands have been continuously, peacefully and effectively inhabited and administered by Britain since 1833.
www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands?profile=history
I too could post a list of the commanders 0f the Spanish penal settlement of Puerto Soledad, so what. Spain never controlled the Falklands beyond the environs of its penal settlement, the British used the islands at will and the letter from the Spanish Governor that I quoted complains that the British are cashing in, while Spain does nothing.
The French settlement on East Falkland was in 1764, so what, Britain landed and claimed the Falklands in 1690. Oh and the British settlement on West Falkland was in 1765, how that makes it two years later is amusing, how desperate are you to stretch that?
The decision to remove the garrison in 1774, it left in 1776 by the way, was not abandonment, the British left notice to that effect.
Nor did the Nootka Convention of 1790, represent abandonment (unilaterally repudidated by Spain in 1795 by the way). Nootka did not apply to the Falklands. Funny how a contrived argument by an Argentine “patriot”, which hinges on a creative interpretation of the word “adjacent”, one which no dictionary would support you cling to with such determination.
Yet a clear unambiguous treaty, that settles existing differences to establish peaceful relations, doesn't apparently settle existing differences, because you say so and you'll scream and scream till you're sick.
And English pirates, gadzooks, not the pirate jibes. Paranoia about Antarctica, born purely of a racist bigoted hatred of the British, well thats just pathetic.
59 years when the islands were occuiped by Spain and the by Argentina since 1820. So in 60 years the british didn´t put a foot in the Islands. And don´t forget the Treaty of Friendship signed with ARG in 1825. No mention there about Malvinas by GB, despiste ARG took posession of the Islands 5 years before, in 1820.
Wikipedia“The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to recognise the independence of Argentina, in a treaty of 1825”
In my case I m realy interesting to seeking a solution to this problem. To be honest with you, I never hated the brits, netiher the islanders
In 1820, David Jewett blundered into the Falklands after nearly wrecking the Heroina in a storm. He was not sent, he ended there by accident, he was not a Argentine navy officer, he was a privateer employed by one Patricio Lynch - and technically a pirate since he took the Portuguese ship Carlota. In a wrecked ship, with a crew incapacitated by scurvy he only made it into port with the assistance of the British Explorer James Weddell. Ever heard of James Clark Ross, who also used the islands as a base for exploration or Matthew Brisbane who accompanied Weddell on his early expeditions? Note that Weddell was already there to assit Jewett, so much for the British absence. I could go on but then you simply have to look in your own archives for the reports of the commanders of the penal colony at Puerto Soledad all of which document the British presence.
Argentina did not take posession in 1820, the Argentine authorities were not even aware that Jewett made such a declaration, it learned about it as a result of reports of Jewett's declaration in American newspapers; you only know of it following the publication of Weddell's book when he included a copy of Jewett's letter - in which Jewett makes many false claims.
In 1825, the was no Argentine settlement in the Falklands, Vernet did not manage to establish a settlement till 1828. The treaty of friendship was recognition of the independence of the Argentine republic; it was not recognition of Argentine claims over British territory - the British Charges d'affaire made several protests over declarations concerning the Faklands. A treaty of friendship and early recognition, and you repay that by perverting it into a meaning it was never intended to have.
You talk of 19th Century events like they mean anything in the 21st Century - simple solution let the islanders decide for themselves.
And while we're on the subject of your comment, “highly defended Antarctica!” Are you unequivocally stating that, despite the provisions of the Antarctic Treaty, Argentina has military installations there? Now you're either lying, again, or your country has breached yet another treaty!
Justin. I hope I do not undermine your intelligent comments, but I would like to mention that the Argentine Republic did not come into being until 1853. Other “states” existed before that, but not the Argentine Republic. argentines have celebrated their bicentenary 43 years to soon! Why would this be any surprise?
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
“During the following years, Argentina declared independence from Spain and also laid claim to the Falklands. In 1820 an American privateer, David Jewett, raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate at Port Louis, but his occupation lasted little over six months” Is this ARG propaganda? NO Is this from an Argentine indoctrinated to hate from his childohood? NO It´s from the falkland gov website. So jewett was not taking seriously?
About the 1850 Treaty, again had nothing to do with the islands, was about the British- French blockade of Arg. rivers.
Harrier I had already mention to you about that big fiesta that you missed of the 200 years of Argentina.
www.mynewsdesk.com/uk/view/pressrelease/coxandkings-co-uk-argentina-turns-200-enjoy-the-fiesta-with-cox-kings-travel-412927
Didn't read too deeply did we.
Jewett stayed for a while but lets examine why shall we. Jewett's voyage was a commercial venture, the backers hoped to repeat the success of Rondeau and sack Spanish ships in the Atlantic. But Jewett had never been a deep water sailor, his US Navy career was in the Caribean and the voyage was a disaster. Setting out early in 1820, they found no Spanish ships, the only ship they found was the Carlota, being Portuguese that was piracy, and she sank in the same storm that nearly sank the Heroína. So after 8 months he had nada to show for it. The little pantomime in Puerto Soledad was designed to grab salvage rights, his crew wished to return to BA but he knew he couldn't go back with nothing. He screwed up again taking the American schooner Rampart causing a diplomatic spat with America, so Mason was sent to relieve him of his command and retake the ship. Which then immediately left. Jewett went to Brazil, joined their navy and fought against Argentina.
Note how history isn't denied, telling it straight not putting any spin on it.
And how many times will you avoid the awkward question.
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
So we have a treaty of friendship, that is creatively interpreted to somehow recognise Argentine sovereignty - which you cling to like a limpet. Then we have a clear unambiguous treaty about settling matters, drawing a line under the past and moving on in peace - and you wiggle and squirm but don't acknowledge what it says. Oh but then you were apparently coerced, coerced after this “great victory”...funny sort of coercion.
long live freedom, and the Falklands,
so lets be fair, the oil has a lot to do with argentine aggression toward a peaceful people, that just wish to be left alone, in peace,
Jewett was an argentine navy officer since 1815. So his action of 1820 was accomplished according to a order given to him. Talking about Jewett in Brazil has nothing to do with the fact that he toke possesion of Malvinas in the name of the United Provinces (ARGENTINA) in 1820. No, we don´t say Jewett is a national heroe, we don´`t need this “boost”. Being just partial is enough, Jewett accomplished an order given to him.
Jewett was a mercenary, he went with the money, happily taking Brazilian money to fight against Argentina.
He wasn't ordered, he was employed by Patrick Lynch - those are facts.
Facts are Jewett used the ARG navy uniform in many ocassion since 1815. Patent of corsary was made by BS AS gov. not Lynch. All simple and pure facts.
About the 1850 treaty,I found my answer to you from previous article, in case that you did not read or forgat..?
Justin,
I ll give you now the truth about the TREATY OF 1849 YOU MENTION ALL TIME. THE TREATY IS KNOWN AS SOUTHERN ARANA CONVENTION. ALSO BY 1850 YOU CAN FIND ARANA MACKAU CONVENTION AND ARANA LE PEDROUR CONVENTION. The last 2 WITH FRANCE and the first with GB. So we have 3 treaties all talking about settling differences and perfect peace, and signed WITH FRANCE AND GB at the same time WHY? Because the difference and perfect peace was because the anlgo french block against ARG rivers.
Regardin the treaty with GB. the introduction talks about settiling all diference and perfect peace with GB and ARG. EXACTLY the same introduction you can find in the treaty of ARG and FRANCE And certanlly there was never any sovereignity issue with France over a territory, so the treaty is not about Malvinas,,you silly. 2nd The first article of the Treaty signed between ARG and GB CLEARLY talks about the DIFFERENCES.
Artículo 1° Habiendo el gobierno de S. M. B., animado del deseo de poner fin á las diferencias ...el día 15 de Julio de 1847, el bloqueo que había establecido en los puertos de las dos repúblicas del
Also please explain why, if BA assumed it had inherited the islands from Spain after 1816 (or 1810?), it would issue orders for a Privateer to claim the islands in 1820?
Please also explain why, if Jewett was acting under orders, did he fail to mention his 'success' to those who had supposedly given him those orders?
Argentina's claims over Jewett are non-sensical and would never stand up in any objective inquiry. Just another example of the crappy indoctrination imposed on young Argentine brains !
And that isn't an answer to the question posed, its a statement of propaganda a fixed position dictated by indoctrination:
How many times will you avoid the awkward question.
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Front page story, 04/08/10 on the Anti-Kirchner conservative Clarin newspaper!
www.clarin.com/politica/Lula-lidero-reclamo-derechos-Malvinas_0_310768935.html
A minimal translation of its “punchlines” for those of you that do not understand Spanish:
“New joint declaration about Malvinas and the protection of natural resources in the South Atlantic.....................”
“The signed declaration includes now not only Malvinas but also the sovereignty over the Georgias and Sandwich Islands as well as their seabed area.............................”
“The declaration, signed by the Presidents of the Six Participant States assumes the compromise NOT to facilitate any activity of vessels which can aid any hydrocarbon activities that affect the rights of the Argentine Republic in its seabed..............”
In short....
As I told you nearly two months ago: No access to our (Mercosur) infrastructure for any Malvinas hydrocarbon related business.
Not strange that MercoPress chose to miss this one :-)
Marco. You have no idea, do you? For a privateer to put on the uniform of an official armed force would not be acceptable. If he were to do it and be apprehended by the opposition, he could have been hanged. A “patent of corsary” is just a term you've made up. Letters of marque were internationally recognised, but they had to specify the belligerent nation and were restricted to actions at sea. Jewett was, as a privateer, authorised to act against the Spanish. Action against any other nation, at sea, would have been piracy. A privateer could not act on land, except incidentally to a naval action, and could not have legally represented the United Provinces on land for the purpose of claiming anything. Jewett committed at least two acts of piracy. First, the seizure of the Portuguese vessel Carlota and then the seizure of the American schooner Rampart. And this is your “representative”, a known pirate.
Only reported in Spanish newspapers ... at least so far, which tells you .... what?
What? :-)
Well I hope the Captains of the ships and planes bound to and from Malvinas can read spanish then......
Heavy fines and delays are not good for business :-)
Why do you insist with that militaristic wet dream?
This typical British bravado is pushing Brazil to waste good money in defence.
en.mercopress.com/2010/07/28/brazilian-military-exercise-to-protect-nuclear-plants-and-vast-offshore-oil-deposits
Or did you Think for one second that those exercises were meant for somebody else?
Just keep away from our Countries and feel free to sail the International Waters as you see fit, burning all that expensive heavy fuel.
You are in for a Surprise then.....
The momentum this “Regional Malvinas Issue” is taking has surprised me!
And I'm a dreamer!
And again and again and again...
Nobody, I repeat, Nobody... Did I mention Nobody with any saying in the matter down here is dreaming of giving you the minimal excuse to “Flex your Military Muscle” against us.
Rule the Waves but keep away from our Ports.
Is that clear enough?
As for Brazil, they feel no threat from the British, so yes.... I believe that the exercises were for some other reason! After all, they may have half an eye on their neighbours!
The issue at the moment is oil ... if there's enough of it and it will make a profit then it'll be extracted .... ok, so it may make less of a profit than if the ice-cream cone assisted (to their own enrichment), but a profit is a profit. The islanders will get richer and their population will grow as a result.
That is fact as Argentina knows full well. Which is why it is so scared of the islanders pulling this off. It may be a moot point as to whether the majority of Argentines really believe that they'll ever 'recover' the islands, but none will believe it if the oil flows. Whoever is in power at that point is in for a political nightmare!
As for muscle ... the Royal Navy would love an incident between now and October if you could arrange one please ..... it would quickly change the balance of the defence review (and that fact alone is a different lesson)!
You say:
“Britain's “imperial pretensions” did end quite a few decades ago...or hadn't you noticed?”
We down under say:
That is NOT what you have been showing the last months in the South Atlantic.
That is NOT what your military budget and strategy show.
That is NOT what the British Press and Politicians are openly declaring.
So the answer is:
No, we have NOT noticed the end of Britain's “imperial pretensions”.
Pretension = a claim or assertion of claim
Well, the British no longer have an empire but as for a claim! We do have a claim and we have the right to protect that claim (rather more than a claim perhaps?).
What we have been showing in the last few months is total support for the Falklanders to exploit the natural resources that clearly belong to them. I don't recall any particular display over South Georgia or the South sandwich Islands but I'm sure any show would run along the same lines.
Our military budget and strategy appear to supplement the indications of support for the Falklanders that we have shown (and also half an eye on the Antartic of course :-).
The declarations of press and politicians reflect the attitude of the British people ......
Well, Think I have an argument over 'imperial' but I'm with you all the way on 'pretensions' :-)
The current SDR has, as a matter of fact, been an “eye opener” of the huge scale of British ambitions on the military “Dream World”.
I'm happy they finally hit the Brick Wall...
The only Air incursion I remember was this:
en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas
And you are right... Nobody in South America is “afraid” of Britain...
You are a Paper Tiger...
But one can cut its fingers with paper so.....even Paper Tigers have to be shown their places sometimes.
My point, as you know very well, is that no one is afraid of Britain in South America as they have no reason to be afraid of Britain - we are, after all, allies. However, and you should know by now that I do not encourage or anticipate any military trouble, if Argentina were to try it on again, Britain is still more than capable (probably more capable than in 1982) of “discouraging” any direct Argentine aggression.
This article mentions the work that Dr Rebecca Upson, Falklands Conservation’s Plant and Habitats Officer are doing together with islanders voluntaries. After the removal of argentinian land mines, garbage left by Argentina after losing the war. You and your “malvinenses” friends could make arrangements to give a voluntary hand instead of talking non sense. Again, empty words are the ONLY product that comes out of the minds of you arrogant senseless people.
Sorry, Think, couldn't resist...and, in my own words, repeated probably far too often, I should “have known better”...!
Two months have gone since my first post in here.
Quite early in the process I wrote about Argentina’s Regional Plans, Ideas and Intentions in respect to the new “Malvinas Issue Situation” provoked by the British Oil Prospection....
I’m happy to see that those ideas are swiftly beginning to take shape and I hope that the regional momentum will keep this pace.
From the beginning I have used the term: “Ethnocentrism” to define the British approach to nowadays South America.
I want today to slot in another term: “utter ignorance” to define the British level of (des)information of what South America is today.
Anyhow, this British “ignorance driven ethnocentrism” seems to be working in Argentina’s favour. I want to better understand the dynamics of that process.
That’s why I’m here.
Not one of your best plans, think.
Also, nothing is working in “your” favor. Nothing has changed, nothing will change.
Yes, I know that you as an Argentine, you've always gone about how the Engrish have “pirated” Engrish territory, but even this, for you, is “outrageous”!
Are you, as Hohtred says, a “pollie”?!! As I said before, say it ain't so!!
All we've heard is lots of rhetoric, no action. Loads of threats, business as usual, more young Falklanders wish to have nothing to do with Argentina.
And as another poster observed, no one is afraid of the British presence, because there is no need to be afraid as it is purely defensive in posture. Toothless Tiger? Well if you wish to descend to the level of childish insults, don't expect anyone to follow.
So Mercosur nations continue to go with “Latin solidarity”, for which read naked racism, for it is solely because they're not Latin. A classic example of macho bully boys picking on the little guy. I'm sure the tiny island community in the South Atlantic won't notice any difference.
Lets see how long that lasts if there is money to be made.
Well (106) and (108) are two perfect examples of my (105) point.
You lost me with this “Engrish” and “Pirate” thing.... I have no idea of what do you want to express :-(
If with “Pollie” you mean politician.... No I'm not.... Not at all..
Your words, basically excluding the Falkland Islanders on the basis of their ethnicity.
ie racism. Simple as that.
Now imagine the furore from Think if the positions were reversed but discriminate against British descendants, thats OK, hypocrite.
“existing differences” reffers to the anglo french issue (vuelta de obligado, your 3rd attemp to intervine in these lands,,,well the 4th). The malvinas are not in this Convention. Regarding treatys you have a nice mark in embroid and change its meaning when is not convenient to you. If you can find something better than “existing differences” I will give you the reason...but as usual is the only thing you have.
Intersesting quote, they know the islands belong to Argentina!
'1968: Lord Chalfont fails to persuade Islanders of the advantages of an agreement with Arg. Memorandum of Understanding dropped as a result of L Chalfont's visit to the Islands.'
Hoytred,
Yes . all the records are there. You denny Jewett possesion when is very easy to check in the times co uk. You denny he was commissioned by Buenos Aires, you certainlly have no clue about the Indpendece war in south america and the idea of the corsaires. In the case of Jewett he was an official of the ARG navy since 1815. 5 years before the date you only know about him. Yes proove are there to check fortunally.Facts, as now you talk about it., are:
The letter he send to every captian when he arrived to Malvinas (including to Weddel) stays cleary ”Frigatte of State Heroina, and so on) Read your records 2 Facts are this event was known in USA and Europa. GB didn´t even protest. By that time Lord Strangford had relations with Buenos Aires. 3 Facts are Jewett used the ARG navy uniform in many ocassion since 1815. Patent of corsary was made by BS AS gov. not Lynch. All simple and pure facts
The falklands are British
www.clarin.com/politica/Lula-lidero-reclamo-derechos-Malvinas_0_310768935.html
I just read this one from well known American magazine, dated from march 2010, they were so right!!
quote
“The New Falklands War
Why Britain will lose to Argentina, or should, this time”
How many times will you avoid the awkward question.
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Lord Chalfont tried to persuade the islanders that closer relations with Argentina were in their interests, they didn't see it that way, no doubt not helped by the Cronica landing during the visit, reminding everyone the first time an Argentine aircraft visited the islands was the hijacking, where islanders who went to assist what they thought was an aircraft in trouble were held hostage by armed gunmen - armed terrorists rewarded with a state pension in Argentina. No doubt not helped by the overtly hostile reception the Falkland delegation received in Argentina, when persuaded to visit as part of a fact finding tour. Lets also remember what Chalfont's brief was, the Falklands had no strategic value to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office so palming them off on Argentina seemed a bargain. Nothing to do with any merit in the Argentine claim whatsoever.
And Marco, no matter what Jewett wrote in his letter, there is nothing to show he was ordered to go to the islands, in fact his orders make no mention whatsoever about that, instead they require him to seize Spanish ships. No matter what service he may have performed prior to taking on the Heroina, he was a privateer, employed by a consortium of BA businessmen in a private venture. Thos are facts. The fact that Argentina has to embroider history to bolster its claim only shows how weak it is.
Weird though, how a treaty of friendship is perverted into something it never was but a peace treaty explicit about settling matters left something unresolved...according to you.
www.newsweek.com/2010/03/04/the-new-falklands-war.html
I specially like the last lines!:
The increasing interdependence of Latin interests has enabled Kirchner to achieve a unified front for her diplomatic war on Britain, which in turn has secured a level of legitimacy for the continent that Britain and the rest of the world should not—and can no longer—ignore.
”Coming into this dispute, Kirchner was losing popularity due to economic stagnation. Now she has indeed been handed a coup—by Britain itself. Some 80 percent of Kirchner's countrymen believe the islands are part of Argentina, so she is pushing the issue hard
A morally bankrupt article, its basically saying coercion is working, nothing to do with rights or wrongs of what Argentina claims. But I note it gets something right about what this is really about - see above.
And its also wrong, Britain didn't push the issue, the FIG did.
“ But by this time Britain was looking alone and out of touch”
FIG? Who's that?
Fédération Internationale de Gymnastique, I guess.
Or the Foreningernes Idrætsråd Gladsaxe
Or the Fonds International de Garantie........
Argentines really need to find someone else to make up their history for them. All the ones from the time of Peron onward have been really crap when faced with people who know about the times. Only success is..., it fools Argentines!
Utter rubbish ... where's your evidence please. Even Weddel didn't believe that he was on an 'official' mission, but after a wreck to ease the venture's losses. Usual rewriting of history by Argentina .... and no sign of them being willing to take the matter to the ICJ, not even to get an opinion.
Morning Think, PominOZ ... so, diverting apart, how's the grass :-)
“Argentines really need to find someone else to make up their history for them.'
This quote is from a British Empire History site, they agree with us. Hoytred, is crying to the author, he said , to be removed. Still there to read.
www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
Quote from that BRITISH site
”Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 ..”
Fortunately an obscure web site (well done for finding it by the way) doesn't carry any sway as the FIG and UK Government have a rather better grasp of reality.
Still, if you are right, it's strange that the Argentine Government hasn't opted long ago to take their case to the ICJ ........ funny that, no?
Argentina had offered UK to take this is issue to the ICJ AS as well in the past. The UK Foreing Office recommended not to take this issue to international arbitration due to the weakness of the british prooves. This is an issue that belongs to bilateral negotiation
Really? Evidence please :-)
For the more serious minded (no Marco, not you) please find attached the latest (June 2010) briefing sheet for Parliament on the Falklands. It'll suit you Think because there's almost no history. I believe it to be well balanced, but (like history) that probably a matter of perspective. Detached then :-)
www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05602.pdf
No mention of Argentina's successes in blockading the islands ... still, it is 2 months old!
There is of course absolutely nothing to stop Argentina submitting its case to the ICJ for an opinion. But lets not forget the last time the British suggested the ICJ as an option; New York talks February 1982.
About this quite informative webpage:
www.britishempire.co.uk/
You say:
The authors is an Argentine (probably) history teacher ......
Fortunately an obscure web site.......
I say:
Stephen Luscombe, teacher, living in England, author of an enormous page about the British Empire, quoted on many academic circles as a valuable reference site........
Where do you have the idea from that he is Argentinean?
Any real source or just a little bit of Slander against a compatriot?
“The Purpose of the Site: First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance.”
Regards www.britishempire.co.uk that Marco is especially fund of referring to, did either of you bother to read the section “The Purpose Of This Site Is” where the other states, and I quote:
“First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance. ”
Skipped over this part did we?
That website also claims that argentina was infact, a british creation.
”(125) Hoyt
About this quite informative webpage:
www.britishempire.co.uk/
You say:
The authors is an Argentine (probably) history teacher ......
Fortunately an obscure web site.......
I say:
Stephen Luscombe, teacher, living in England, author of an enormous page about the British Empire, quoted on many academic circles as a valuable reference site........”
Think - you state this site is listed as a valuable resource site in acedemic circles.
One has to wonder if you have actually checked this. Perhaps you would like to list 10 academic sites which list www.britishempire.co.uk as a valuable acedemic resource?
1) A disclaimer like that, on the first side of a webpage only adds to its credibility. (And no, nobody missed or skipped it)
2) The whole website is interesting with a lot of original and fun material about the British Empire.
3) It is quite correct as stated in this webside that Argentina’s history and even formation is intimately related to the United Kingdom. Argentina was, in fact, during many years part of the “informal” British Empire.
4) For those of you that want to know more about this page relevance, I have only one thing to say: “DYOR”
5) My question to Hoyt (and not to the “Turnips” in here) was: Where does he have it from that “Mr. Stephen Luscombe” is Argentinean?
You state this site is listed as a valuable resource site in acedemic circles. Please list them, otherwise, you're equally guilty of misrepresenting it.
Nice distraction tactic to disguise the avoidance of the awkward question, quelle surprise.
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
So I gave you an answer on en.mercopress.com/2010/08/03/un-court-ruling-props-self-determination-contains-territorial-integrity#comments
but I'll repeat it
It is still hard to come to grips with the total lack of understanding on the part of Argentines.
1790 - Nootka Sound Convention - Irrelevant. You cannot have colonial “ambitions” toward a territory over which you are already sovereign.
1820 - Jewett - Irrelevant. At the time he reached the Islands, Jewett was, at best, a privateer authorised to act only against Spanish vessels. At worst, he was a pirate, having seized a Portuguese and an American vessel, and therefore incapable of any legitimate act. As witness that, in February 1821, having finally repaired his ship and returned to BA, he was relieved of his command. He then escaped to Brazil where he joined the Brazilian forces for the war against the United Provinces. All facts.
Now, if you really think that there is some worth in a site that calls itself www.britishempire.co.uk/ feel free to continue quoting. If its URL ended with ac.uk I might be more inclined to pay attention.
And now a question for you. Is there any part of your country's history, apart from 1982, that doesn't end in glorious victory for the Argentine people? Be honest now. I'll give you a clue. Britain's history, at least ten times longer than yours, is studded with things that didn't quite come off, reverses, defeats even, along with our many victories. Try for a bit of honesty.
”1) A disclaimer like that, on the first side of a webpage only adds to its credibility. (And no, nobody missed or skipped it)”
No, a disclaimer like that only shows the authors honesty, it does not add anything to the level of accuracy of the information provided in the site, quite the opposite in fact.
Now - can you name those 10 sites you were asked to provide? You know the academic sites you mentioned that list this site as a valuable acadmeic resource.
Read (134) Point 4
(137)
Read (134) Point 4
Ie you were talking out of your backside and cannot back up the claims you made. Unsurprising.
Your choice. Backup what you claim, or we assume you're a prat.
We'll just assume your a prat and move on.
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a Brithish pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
Argentina has strong support like never before from South America, Central America, North America, China, Caribbean, and beginning to have strong support from USA(remenber the US Secretay of State, H. Clinton comments in Buenos Aires a few months ago that upset the Brits so much)
Do you feel lonely? So sorry this is just the beginning.
long live Great Britain
“The Falklands are clearly a colonial problem, however much their inhabitants refuse the term colony. Ruled by the Spanish from the late 18th century, the islands would have become consolidated into independent Argentina had the British navy not decisively intervened in 1833. The British presence in the South Atlantic is a relic of time when Europe saw the wider world as an open buffet.”
The most popular newspaper in the UK is the sun, with 7.8 million people buying the paper(the actual paper, not van internet blog with a newspapers name.)
can anyone here say I don't have a queen ??
yes ! Me !
before anyone else gives me the royal brainwash vercion of democracy,
take your time to read ths important piece of writen toilet paper.
in particular the part that reads “11. There is reserved to Her Majesty full power to make laws for the peace, order and good government of the Falkland Islands including, without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing, laws amending this Order or the Schedule.”
ok lets hear the trolls redefign freedom for us, please!
www.falklands.gov.fk/assembly/documents/The%20Falkland%20Islands%20Constitution%20Order%202008.pdf
Her Majesty also has that responcibility in other nations such as Canada austrailia and new zeland. It is just tradition, The queen does not even rule England anymore.
Freedom is(if you mean political freedom) is the absence of interference with the sovereignty of an individual by the use of coercion or aggression.
The islanders are “free” to stay with us, as they have chosen to, they are also “free” to go independant whenever they so wish, if they had wished to join Argentina, they would be “free” to do that too. That Avargas, is freedom.
#129 - some aspects of British humour still eluding you Think? You'll be telling me he's not a left wing Guardian reader next :-)
I assume you mean 'destructive' although quite why you see it that way is beyond me. Hey ho, the spanish are not noted for their sense of humour I suppose !
Now to more important matters .... has anything changed? Is there anything happening? Of importance I mean :-)
uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/Destructivism
www.themarginal.com/destructivism.htm
Well............ I just removed two ticks from my dog.... That was important.... for him.....
Did you notice that the eye witness testimony contradicts that book you go on about so much? So again:
Darwin talks to the members of Vernet's settlement in 1833 & 1834
Fitzroy documents them in his diary of 1833 & 1834
Thomas Helsby an Argentine emigre and member of Vernet's settlement Kept a diary and documented the events of 1833.
Pinedo in the ARA Sarandi documents the events and notes the settlers were not evicted.
You can quote English language texts, that reflect the incorrect version of events pumped out by Argentina, that merely reflects the laziness of the authors to not do their research properly or the fact that Argentina pumps out so much propaganda that it has distorted the historical record.
But continuing with the same broken record, long after it has been proven a lie, one which you can verify for yourself from easily accessible historical records merely demonstrates you're indoctrinated, unwilling to listen and preaching what is in effect a matter of faith in complete ignorance of the facts.
Not to mention an awkward question you keep avoiding:
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
No matter what distraction tactics you employ, I'll keep on asking it. Again the fact you refuse to answer, merely shows you're indoctrinated and unprepared to face the uncomfortable truth.
I note Think is unable to back up the bold claims he made, says it all really. All bluff and bluster and no actual substance.
Not tricky at all........
You have to know how to do it........
First you grab firmly the thicks body.....
Then you start, firmly but slowly to apply increasingly outwards pressure.
After an average of 10-15 seconds the ticks mouthpiece gets “weary” and opens itself.
Nice and easy......
The author concludes by indicating that ”the weirdness“ of the whole matter lies in the fact that there is no modern history of an Argentine connection to the Malvinas since ”The 3,000-odd inhabitants are mostly descendants of immigrants from Britain, and they overwhelmingly support continued British rule.”
.
whislt ensuring the friendly neighbours were made beneficiary through trade deals etc.
Just to rub salt in the wound!
I already did, can you read English?
Justin, “reflects the laziness of the authors to not do their research properly”
If you call so many British historian lazy because they write facts that doesn't suit your side of the story, I wonder what do you call the Argentinian historian that do the same?...
Historical opinion that fails to supply its sources is meaningless. Only with adequate references is it possible for readers to check the sources to ensure that the opinion is reasonable given the known facts.
No refernces/sources = no validity
Marco, please tell us who these many British historians are that you speak of. Looking through the this thread I can only see three. Now two of these are actually Australian, not British, and the other, the author of the british empire web site you do so enjoy banging on about has written a disclaimer on said site stating that the information supplied could be inaccurate and that it is not a highly researched academic site.
No where does the author of the british empire site claim to be a professional academic historian, quite the opposite in fact. It is clear from his disclaimer and further statements, that he is an amateur historian at best.
So in fact you appear to have mentioned only one amateur british historian. So please can you provide the names of these MANY British historians whos writtings justify Argentina's claim as you have named none so far.
I note you ignore the direct testimony where you could verify the information I supplied, to instead engage in an ad hominem attack. I take no issue with Argentine historians who evaluate the historical evidence and report it objectively. My issue is with those who embellish and indulge in either half-truths, outright lies or lies by omission of inconvenient facts.
Case in point being modern Argentina's claim that the settlers were expelled in 1833, this is simply a lie, it didn't happen. In point of fact the British captain made strenuous efforts to persuade people to stay.
Yet you quote a source that reflects the inaccurate information pumped out by Argentina as proof and ignore the direct eye witness testimony that shows it to be a lie. They're not “facts” far from it. Clearly you have no interest in objective evaluation of the evidence, merely to broadcast a propaganda position. You're so indoctrinated you simply cannot face the truth or the facts.
Not to mention an awkward question you keep avoiding:
Question: The 1850 Convention of Settlement
A. It is a treaty between Britain and Argentina.
B. It explicitly says settle existing differences.
C. The intention was to establish peaceful relations.
How can you settle your differences and leave an issue unresolved?
Yup, and not a particularly good one either. You Argies can't be getting much value for the tax you pay....
you could call it the the falklands line, it would save the swim
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!