Wednesday, September 18th 2013 - 06:54 UTC

Falklands/Malvinas: Argentina recalls its major UN diplomatic success in 1964/65

Tierra del Fuego media recalled that on 17 September 1964 a United Nations sub-committee unanimously recommended that the “Malvinas case” be included among issues referred to Decolonisation and thus admits ‘the existence of sovereignty dispute over the Falklands and other South Atlantic islands’.

Former Argentine foreign minister Miguel Angel Zavala Ortiz was the architect of events leading to UN Resolution 2065

On hearing the decision, Argentina’s then Minister of Foreign Affairs Miguel Angel Zavala Ortiz said that “it is the first time that Argentina’s rights have been exposed countering the UK pretensions in a privileged forum such as the United Nations”.

In the UN General Assembly a year later the Argentine minister again presented the case denouncing “the illegitimate administration which the UK exercises over an integral part of our national territory occupied by violence”.

That year (1965) the UN committee on ‘colonial affairs’ committed itself to address the issue. As a result of the diplomatic offensive, the UN General Assembly, meeting in December 1965, “approved by an overwhelming majority and not one vote against, Resolution 2065 which left reported the sovereignty conflict”.

The vote was 94 in favour, 14 abstentions and no negative vote.

The resolution invited both governments “to pursue without delay the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee in charge of examining the situation in respect of the implementation of the Declaration on the concession of independence to the colonial countries and peoples, so as to find a peaceful solution to the problem, taking into account the rules and objectives of the UN charter…as well as the interests of the Falklands/Malvinas people”.

Point 2 of the resolution requests that “both governments report to the Special Committee and the General Assembly” in the following session period “on the result of the negotiations”

Finally Tierra del Fuego media underlines that this was ‘the greatest diplomatic success conquered by Argentina in its dispute with the UK over the Falklands/Malvinas Islands sovereignty’.

180 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.

1 Lord Ton (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:21 am Report abuse
Resolution 2065 is dead. Founded on Ruda's lies it was murdered. Stabbed in the back by its only true friend. In 1982. RIP 2065
2 Lou Spoo (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:29 am Report abuse
LOL. Their greatest diplomatic success is a meaningless 50 year old UNGA resolution. What awesome political skills these Argentines have!
3 Steve-33-uk (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:49 am Report abuse
The Falkland Islanders have no INTEREST in seeing their home become a colony of Argentina and their resources stolen.

End of debate...
4 Steveu (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:24 am Report abuse
A success based on untruths?

Nice people!
5 Biguggy (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:29 am Report abuse
Some success.
Four days after 2065 was voted on a further UNGA resolution was passed, 2105 which, inter alia, in item 7(c) states:
“To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories; ” There are no exclusions conditions etc!!!
Thereby confirming that the Islanders do have the right to self -determination. Similar resolutions have been issued almost annually, the last being 67/134 at the end of last year.
The allegations by CFK, Timberhead and others, that the Islanders do not have the right to self determination is therefore so much BS.
6 Islander1 (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:43 am Report abuse
Wow! Well done Argentina - the best you can achieve was a meaningless vote that is - and was not- binding on any nation - half a century ago!!
We are quivering in our boots in fear over here!
Care to comment about little things like a certain UN Security Council Resolutionthat was passed against you with no veto by any permanent member?
7 Redrow (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:56 am Report abuse
I realise I'm 50 years too late here, but just to say well done on your diplomatic triumph Argentina - terrific job, no really, splendid.

I wasn't alive in the 60s but I do remember when the Bay City Rollers played my home town in the 70s. Plus I saw Johnny Morris from Animal Magic at a cat show around then too. I wonder has anyone else examples of things from the 60s or 70s of things, that they can sort of remember but that have absolutely no impact or relevance in the 21st century?
8 Benson (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:59 am Report abuse
“United Nations sub-committee unanimously recommended that the “Malvinas case” be included among issues referred to Decolonisation”
“Declaration on the concession of INDEPENDENCE to the colonial countries and peoples”
The important words here are Decolonisation and independence. I don't see anything here about making us a colony of Argentina. As far as I can see their major success was telling the world that we should be independent.
9 HansNiesund (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 09:17 am Report abuse
And 50 years later they still haven't twigged that recognizing the existence of a dispute isn't the same as recognizing the validity of their claim.
10 lsolde (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 09:22 am Report abuse
Oh well done, Argentina.
A Resolution based on lies(on your part)50 years ago.!
Which you killed by your invasion of 1982.
lf thats the best you can do, then we have nothing to fear.
But still we must be eternally vigilant.
Untrustworthy lot.
11 Britworker (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 09:29 am Report abuse
I love their selective memory, wasn't there a little something which happened in 1982, that kind of shits all over what happened 50 years ago.

One would think they would be a little more concerned about the direction their economy is heading and the fact that their reserves are about to run dry, not delusions of colonialism.
12 andy65 (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 10:00 am Report abuse
Will Argentina be reporting in the future how proud they were to become the first country to be censored for ....... wait for it....... LYING
13 ElaineB (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 10:17 am Report abuse
@8 Exactly my thoughts. Nothing about making it a colony of Argentina.

It is an extraordinary case of brainwashing that the Malvanistas celebrate the invasion of the Falklands as if they achieved anything positive at all. They lost pitifully and cost the lives of a thousand people, mostly Argentine, and were sent home in disgrace. And yet they still celebrate as if it were some great achievement.
14 Biguggy (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 10:18 am Report abuse
@ 6 Islander1
Should any permanent member of the Security Council have voted 'no' to UNSC resolution 502 that would have been a 'veto' regardless of how many members voted 'for' it.
Article 27 of the UN Charter reads:
“1. Each member of the Security Council shall have one vote.
2. Decisions of the Security Council on procedural matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members.
3. Decisions of the Security Council on all other matters shall be made by an affirmative vote of nine members including the concurring votes of the permanent members; provided that, in decisions under Chapter VI, and under paragraph 3 of Article 52, a party to a dispute shall abstain from voting.”
15 HansNiesund (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 11:54 am Report abuse
Taking its case to the decolonization committee is probably the dumbest thing Argentina ever did, 1982 excepted, since it has enshrined the principle of self-determination as the only solution.

The Chinese, being much smarter, did precisely the opposite by having Hong Kong and Macau removed from the list in the 1960s. You'd think Arjuntina might have noticed.

You really do have to wonder if Argentine governments have ever in reality wanted the islands. Why have they done practically everything conceivable to ensure that the islands will never be theirs? Could anybody really be this clueless, or could it be the work of MI6?
16 Malvinense 1833 (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 11:55 am Report abuse
To Isolde with fondness:
17 Musky (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 12:02 pm Report abuse
The interests of the islanders were paramount then and now and self determination was duly exercised, something that argentina would never allow. Is it in islanders best interests to be part of Argentina?... do me a lemon, that's the biggest oxymoron on the planet!
The UK engaged with argentina as the UN-resolution mandated and the UK stayed fully within the law when it dealt with the situation and it also ascertained the will of the islanders, all fully justified in the UN charter.

Argentina will never have the islands unless the islanders choose. End of story.

The mention of violence is a lie. Not one single person died or was hurt when Britain took proper control of its islands in 1833 having discovered them, mapped them and claimed them 50 years earlier. We even started a colony which spain threw out and then re-instated.
In 1850 the curtains were drawn on the whole affair and all sides respectably got on with their lives, the issue was totally closed.
18 Escoses Doido (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 12:26 pm Report abuse
19 GFace (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 12:27 pm Report abuse
@15 (and @1) If they were serious about the Falklands and their allegedly precious 2065, they would have met with Hague and the Islanders in February and of course we know what happened when Timerman had a golden photo-op so he could look all statesmanly or even like an ordinary man -- he ran like the weak insecure sniveling coward he is from only two -- TWO --elected representatives of only 3000 or so people. It proved once an for all that Argentine vacated 2065 in 1982 AND in 2013 -- because they aren't really interested in *having* the islands -- just *using* the islands to distract a country of suckers just like the Junta they celebrate on their coins did in 1982.
20 Faulconbridge (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 02:03 pm Report abuse

You really do have to wonder if Argentine governments have ever in reality wanted the islands. Why have they done practically everything conceivable to ensure that the islands will never be theirs? Could anybody really be this clueless, or could it be the work of MI6?”

Nothing clueless about it, HansNiesund. In fact, it's a very intelligent ploy. Whenever things go wrong or the Argentinean people have doubts about their government's wisdom or honesty cries of “Malvinas Argentinas” and accusations of treason against anyone who tries to talk about anything else work wonderfully.
21 Islander1 (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 02:04 pm Report abuse
15- that was the point- poor old Arg could not even get Russia or China
to block the resolution for them!
22 Juanka (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 02:21 pm Report abuse
The Falkland Islanders have no INTEREST in seeing their home become a colony of Argentina and their resources stolen.
Get over and concentrate in solve the problems in benefits of the Country and
the suffering Argentinian.
LOL. Their greatest diplomatic success is a meaningless 50 year old UNGA resolution. What awesome political skills these Argentines have! ;
Learn to live today, stop the dreaming of the past
23 Steve-33-uk (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 02:29 pm Report abuse
'Euro is accepted, but recommendation is to bring dollars to the Falklands ~ ...Diplomatic discussions aside, the islands also have their attractions. Onsite live about 3000 people gathered in the vast majority in the capital, Port Stanley. Located in the South Atlantic, the British territory has, even with a small population, its own currency: the pound malvinense, which is equivalent to the British pound, so one of the strongest currencies in the world. Instituted in 1833, after the proclamation of British sovereignty, issued by the United Kingdom, its value, according to the exchange rate of the Central Bank of Brazil (quote September 2), is R $ 3.68 for a unit of currency...',b353c49934d21410VgnVCM3000009acceb0aRCRD.html

'A children's book to raise awareness - Claudio Javier Garbolino is the author of “Pepin the Penguin, the monster and the Falkland Islands,” a children's story you are looking for a fun and colorful kids awaken “early awareness” of what happened in the 1982 war...'

'Why not? Hypothesis Uruguayan Frente studies Malvinas sovereignty - The ruling party senator and frontrunner Constanza Moreira (Space 609), signed a Defence report which was presented to the Programme of the Frente Amplio, which proposes the establishment of a commission to study the Uruguayan sovereignty over the Falkland Islands...'
24 GFace (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 03:01 pm Report abuse
@23 So Steve... was the so-called monster the fascists from Argentina who held guns to the heads of the people of “Las Malvinas” or the british who liberated them from the true monsters. You might as well have a book for German children today about how Poland attacked Germany in 1938. These fascists never change.
25 Brit Bob (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 03:13 pm Report abuse
UN Resolution 2056, Argentina's only diplomatic success was killed off by their invasion of the Falklands.

This was confirmed by Ban Ki-Moon on 12th November 2012.

and this WAS their only diplomatic success - 1965.
26 Terence Hill (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 03:15 pm Report abuse
The legal system really works I am reminded of the legal maxim, so justice is not only seen to be done, but is done. So they have nothing by their own fraud.

Nullus commodum capere potest de injuria sua propria (Co. Litt. 148 b.) - No man can take advantage of his own wrong.

It is a maxim of law, recognised and established, that no man shall take advantage of his own wrong c; and this maxim, which is based on elementary principles, is fully recognised in courts of law and of equity, and, indeed, admits of illustration from every branch of legal procedure. The reasonableness of the rule being manifest, we proceed at once to show its application by reference to decided cases; and, in the first place, we may observe that a man shall not take advantage of his own wrong to gain the favourable interpretation of the law d: frustra legis auxilium quœrit qui in legim comittit e; wherefore, A. shall not have an action of trespass against B., who lawfully enters to abate a nuisance caused by A.'s wrongful act.
27 Steve-33-uk (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 03:24 pm Report abuse
@23 @24
Brainwashing children from 2 years old is truly disturbing...
'...addresses the issue of the Falkland Islands for children aged 2-8 years. “We did a children's book that deals with the sovereignty of our islands,” said Claudio...'

It appears Uruguay also want to steal a slice the islanders resources, do they seriously believe they have a stronger claim to the Falkland Islands than the Falkland Islanders or Britain or France!
They will no doubt be plotting with their colonial neighbour to share the sp-oil-s.
What the hell is wrong with Latin America?
28 GFace (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 04:14 pm Report abuse
@27 They ARE getting them at the right age, the age of “MINE!” A stage of “maturity” the Malvanisas make sure the Argentines never outgrow.

“It appears Uruguay also want to steal a slice the islanders resources,”

Well Gee! I thought everyone was behind Argentinas on ~their~ claim. Now we see that for Uruguay they're doing it for the same reason that the rugby star was standing firmly behind Cameron.
29 Anbar (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 04:18 pm Report abuse
“”“”“”“”“”It appears Uruguay also want to steal a slice the islanders resources, do they seriously believe they have a stronger claim to the Falkland Islands than the Falkland Islanders or Britain or France! “”“”“”“””

No, but it IS stronger than Argentina's. ;-0
30 CabezaDura (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 05:20 pm Report abuse
Well in practical terms the passing of the resolution 37/9 in November 1982 was a bigger diplomatic victory for Argentina, because it was passed after a military defeat, and the Junta somehow managed to retain the political status quo regarding the islands.
31 brasherboot (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 06:11 pm Report abuse
And Argentina will remake 60s and 70s movies, such as:

Raise the Belgrano!
Dr Strangebitch: How I stopped worrying and learned to love being bombed
Planet of the Gurkas
32 The Truth PaTroll (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 06:24 pm Report abuse
Another train crash and another expropriation... Those pathetic backwards banana republics, I tell you!
33 Conor J (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:08 pm Report abuse
“Falklands/Malvinas: Argentina recalls its major UN diplomatic success in 1964/65,” and how it pissed it all away in 1982!

Ah the short (in every department) racist and pathetic troll seems to be under the impression that anyone cares for his drivel. Oh by the by, since when was Canada a republic?

He seems to think that the occasional car crash or shoddy transpiration method is the basis of wether a country is worthy in his eyes. I seem to recall seeing 'Indian-styled' train transportation in Argentina....I wonder if you have access to the food and beverages compartment while clinging onto the fucking roof.
34 Redrow (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:08 pm Report abuse
@32 Tobi

And that has what to do with the story?
So what are your views on the diplomatic triumph that is 2065?
35 GFace (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:14 pm Report abuse
@30 A “no-cost” status quo. Even if 2065 was still in effect it means nothing for fascists and dictocrats in Argentina alike if the self-determination remains the law of the land -- which it is. The Islanders made their opiunion on this even before their beloved Junta tried to export their dirty war on to the Islanders in 82. They won't go to the one body that can impose a solution (the ICJ) because they know they will lose. More still, Argentina all but walked away from 2065 in February. There is no actionable dispute save for Argentina's embittered mutterings which it keeps out of any venue where the alleged dispute can be legitimately resolved -- because their claim has no 21st century legitimacy. And they know it.
36 ChrisR (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:26 pm Report abuse
You have to laugh though.

Drag some poor bastard out of the closet of history and show him to be the biggest liar at the time and this is their fantastic achievement.

Oh dear, never mind, keep taking the Lithium.
37 Briton (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:28 pm Report abuse
Amazing then, how they quietly forget all the resolutions they either ignore or break,

Amazing then how they quietly forget all the innocent who died on both sides
Amazing then how quietly they forget the dirty war.

As long as 17 September 1964 smiles on them, who care of the rest of history??

38 HansNiesund (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:32 pm Report abuse
“If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”

This philosophical conundrum is now known to be a fallacy, because if a tree falls in a forest anywhere, Tobi will be around sharpish to claim that the falling tree discharges Argentina from some failure, crime, or mistake it has made.
39 CabezaDura (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 07:47 pm Report abuse
@35 It´'s not the point I was trying to make...You confuse international law with the politics of reality. Argentina, you may like it or not managed to transform a military defeat in a political victory, or at least a draw, which it’s the same as saying that the UK failed to capitalise politically in the international front after winning the war in 1982, because the status quo that enabled and lead to the war was re-established shortly after in November the same year. Now don’t get me wrong I’m not saying that the war did not have profound political implications at home in both UK and Argentina and the islands... But to go to war, win it and end up maintaining the status quo is due to the failure of the UK to muster support for her case in contrast of Argentina. Often in history the wins on the battlefield is the one that calls the shots, not in this case.
40 Gordo1 (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:05 pm Report abuse
All the myths, lies and fairy stories that Argentina employs to further their claim of sovereignty are quite risible. They seem to be blind to the fact that all their claims are totally nullified by the existence of the Arana Southern Treaty ratified in 1850 in which Argentina tacitly gave up their claims to the archipelago.
That is the only document that matters.
41 CabezaDura (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 08:08 pm Report abuse
@39 Should say “”Often in history the one that wins on the battlefield is the one that ends up calling the shots, not in this case.“”
42 ChrisR (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 09:35 pm Report abuse
39 CabezaDura

You are wrong. The ONLY mistake the Beloved Margaret ever made was to listen to “Ray-Gun Ronnie Regan” when he asked her not to humiliate the argies by going onto the mainland.

We should have fucked “them every whichway but loose” to quote a phrase.

That REALLY was a missed opportunity.
43 GFace (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 10:57 pm Report abuse
@41 And in the case of the Falklands that is most certainly a GOOD thing. Would you have preferred an alternative result written by the losers? The Junta in power longer. More disappearances. More torture. More state-sponsored murder. All all with the praise and approval by the people of Argentina, who just before the invasion wanted them gone (hence the invasion) but just after they were willing to pay any price and bear any burden so long as the human face of the Islanders were decorated with their now-beloved Junta's jackboot. The Malvanistas here refuse to recognize this broader implication of a Junta victory in the Islands in 1982. (And the theory that the Junta would immediately democratize once the Islanders were fully subjugated, ethnically cleansed or “disappeared” is a ludicrous as saying that the Mulahs in Iran will turn in to liberal secular humanists as soon as they wipe out the Israelis... and the Bahai... and the gays... and the women who think for themselves.... Oh heck if they kill enough of the RIGHT people it COULD happen, right?)

But Chris is right, MT gave in to RR even though it was well within her right to put war criminals on trial (false surrenders. human shields) or at minimum not have permitted the fascists at the top the “dignity” of keeping their weapons and otherwise pressure the Argentines to honor their treaty in 1850.

As for a diplomatic “victory,” yes, too easy on the Junta AND in the long run damaging to AR keeping them from moving on. The Islanders rejected them BEFORE 1982. And now that door was now shut forever. AR could certainly “negotiate” with the UK and Falklands with predictable results (rather like hypothetical post-WW2 Japan & Germany “negotiating” with South Korea & Denmark for the right to rule over them as they did at their wartime zeniths). But as recent events have proven the Argentines have no interest even in THAT.

The post-1982 realpolitik truly favored the Islanders, regardless of empty resolutions.
44 CabezaDura (#) Sep 18th, 2013 - 11:57 pm Report abuse
@43Look the point is Argentina has always been backed by its constituency in Latin America and at the time plus non aligned states and communist bloc members; on the other hand Britain doesn’t even get the formal backing of the EU, nor commonwealth nor the US. What is interesting is that UK could not break this deadlock immediately after the war... I’m not even saying the Argentina claim is strengthened by this fact... But internationally it keeps the conflict alive at least enough for you the Argentines and British are concerned. (Or else we wouldn’t have this conversation right now would we?) You know in politics most of the times it doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong it’s about how you portrait them
Plus ChrisR is talking rubbish. What’s true is that president Reagan insisted MT upon the last days of the war to settle a formal truce with Galtieri to save the argentine Junta’s face, and she declined... Ever heard of him asking not to attack the mainland, in fact the SAS did attempt to do so.
45 Anglotino (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 12:21 am Report abuse
“Britain doesn’t even get the formal backing of the EU, nor commonwealth nor the US”

But it does have the UN. Anyone else is pure theatrics. Just ask Argentina.
46 GFace (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 12:29 am Report abuse
@44, I ~do~ see some of your points here. But does this Latam version of the “Poland for the Germans” brigade get the Argentines case any traction in the ICJ or otherwise bring any closer the day that the human rights of the islanders are denied to pander to Argentine fascist colonialist delusions? No. Does it make the Islanders persona non-grata on other Latam countries? Apparently not looking at their travelogs, which honestly surprises me and should be one helluva cluebat to the collective heads of Argentina! Does the American legislature pass resolutions supporting the Argentine claim? No, indeed, even the admittedly shameful and even lame-assed Monroe Doctriney US State Department's “neutrality” leans to favor the status quo -- i.e., upholding Falklands self-determination. Does the EU recognize the Islanders.... well... uh... yes. It's in their documents and very clearly so. Did the UN strip the islanders of their right to self-dtermination like the Malvanistas claim? No. To the contrary, they rejected the exemptions that Spain and Argentina tried to sneak in and did so hard.

The Islanders get dehumanized by Malvanista fascists, dictocracies and dishonest hacks in the C24 who tell the most easily disprovable lies to keep their rage against the Nortes on the ceremonial front burner. But they seem to be doing quite well for themselves -- even in the Latin America that is allegedly so unanimous in opposing them.

Who ISN'T doing very well with this? Well... Argentina, who is marinated in unhealthy denial, enabled by neighbors who are looking out for themselves (while dealing with the Islanders on the not-so-sly). Is anyone in Argentina doing good by this? Well yes. That would be the various inept and corrupt governments who ring the Malvinas bell so their indoctrinated citizens drool like Pavlov's dogs and ignore their troubles at the sound of the ding-a-ling -- but that just buys them a little time -- just as it did for the Junta.
47 CabezaDura (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 01:13 am Report abuse
Well to tell you the truth I was quite impressed myself that so far Argentina has mustered formal and up to some extent the factual support of South America. I’m quite sure that even the British foreign office didn’t see that coming either, just 3 or 4 years ago. Tendencies are tendencies, now I’m not naive as you may think I know those resolutions are non-binding and that the ICJ is the proper place to settle the dispute, but as I say as long as the argentine government and nationalist Latin-Americans are concerned that piece of paper (legally useless as it may be) is good enough for them... The UK may look the other way but let me tell you Argentina is gaining the upper hand in the political front. Of course it doesn’t change the political status of the islands anytime soon or in theforeseeable future, but the conflict as I see it is only bound to escalate.
48 reality check (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 04:26 am Report abuse
Lost the war and won the politics.

That's why the islands are still occupied by their rightful inhabitants I suppose!
49 GFace (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 04:36 am Report abuse
C.D., They still aren't going to dethrone self-determination *especially* if there is a “territorial dispute” as Argentina and Spain cynically tried and failed to do -- preciously because there are too many interested parties in other conflicts that hinge on S-D where a territorial dispute is currently being leveraged or could preempt their cause -- including the worlds most “celebrated” one and it aint' the Falklands. And SD trumps all and is a third rail at the UN. Meanwhile Argentina and her fellow latam states can pound sand, nod, grunt, “mmhmm” and grumble about the north in the dark corners of committees like C24 that's going beyond its mandate here -- while these same allies are discreetly, and not-so-discretely talking to the Falklands (remember: no one has been deported, “extradited,” detained or declared PNG so far with those states that the FIG has visited). I will agree that there is a potential for “escalation” of Argentina's rhetoric since the current party needs validation on this (heck, any!) matter to distract from its train wreck. They may try a “stunt” to see if their allies will truly drink the chunky milk but aside from the hardcore allies, but I'm not convinced that Latam as a whole would join in besides nodding and grunting and continue the current no-cost status quo where the islands are free to do as they wish despite Argentina rather impotent lust for power over them. This just isn't a burning fight where states have to take a stand AND *commit* to their committed side of “The Cause.” Britain, protects the islands from potential AR aggression. AR cannot project and dares not try. International Law and UN Charter sides with the Islanders. And the Islands have opportunities that may pan out that people are watching AND aren't being jerks like AR has been. I just can't see how AR has the upper hand unless they have photos of all the Latam leaders with farm animals...
50 LEPRecon (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:33 am Report abuse
@47 CD

I have to agree with GFace @49.

Argentina has NO support at all. Just a few mumbled words from their fellow SA leaders.

Any 'international' support they claim to have revolves around countries saying that Argentina and the UK should resolve any problems peacefully.

This the UK has tried to do, but Argentina won't sit down at the negotiation table, and they have been seen NOT to sit at the negotiation table by the world.

As for their fellow SA leaders they lose nothing by grunting a few supportive noises Argentina's way.

And there is good reason for this, because Argentina also claims large swathes of Chile, Brazil, Paraguay, Bolivia and ALL of Uruguay as their territory. Now if Argentina did somehow manage to magically gain the Falkland Islands, they would then immediately turn their attention to their neighbours and start demanding territory from them. Something they would find much easier to steal, sharing a land border.

These SA countries now that Argentina has a snowball's chance in hell of gaining the Falklands, so are content with the status quo, however, they do have to live next door to Argentina. So a few meaningless cooing words works miracles on Argentina's arrogance, and keeps them quiet.

In the meantime the UK and the Falklands enjoy good relations with the majority of South American countries. The proof, as it were, is in the eating of the pudding.

When the oil starts flowing the majority of Argentina's so-called friends, will happily trade with the Falklands despite Argentina's hissy fits.

Personally I believe Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Paraguay should form a quadruple alliance against Argentina and put them firmly in their place. They may have been a powerful country in South America once, now they are a toothless tiger.
51 CabezaDura (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 07:33 am Report abuse
Ufff I’m being completely dragged in to so much stuff I didn’t say and having to over explain everything from my modest comment at 30...Listen I’m for my country and stand for it, but what you say seems legit to me, most of you seem to have done your research into this for years now, and I’m definitely not here to convince you that the islands should be argentine, I know for a fact, that apart from words the argentine policy is handicapped in actually achieving anything significant on the ground but I mostly believe in the politics of reality and again I will repeat what I said to you earlier; in politics it doesn’t matter if you are right or wrong, it’s about how you portrait things to put forward your own case... It’s about winning the propaganda war so to speak. We’ve just seen the US back down and out played brilliantly by the Russians and Syrians, but obviously that has come after losing the hearts and minds throughout the world and in its own constituency too over the last decade. The Israelis, for some time they’ve been doing what they must to survive, fair enough, but you go nowadays into any social media and major news networks and you will realise that a lot of people simply hate them or at least side with the Palestinians, you’ll realise (regardless of what you think about them) that a huge antagonism exists against them in the whole world that 10 years ago didn’t exist. They’ve defiantly lost the propaganda war. It’s about winning the hearts and minds, especially nowadays in the digital age, and Argentina I believe is winning politically. Now I don’t know much what kind relations the FIG has managed to establish between other Latam countries, but when and if, they go too public the Latam politicians will axe them, because ultimately they are expendable, for a population of 2000 plus inhabitants cannot provide enough business benefits to outpay the political costs of befriending the “pirates”.
52 LEPRecon (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 08:42 am Report abuse
@51 CD

Wrong. Money talks and talks loudly. When the oil starts flowing in the Falklands, South American countries will be 1st in the queue to do business with them. Politics will always take 2nd place when there is money to be made.

As for the propaganda war, I'd say it was Argentina that is losing in a BIG way, and the Falkland Islands that are winning.

The Argentine government trumpets everything they say or do regarding the Falklands as a great success. But this is erroneous, and only believed by the people of Argentina.

The Falkland Islands 'issue' barely raises its head ANYWHERE else in the world. It is a non-issue.

Your President has humiliated Argentina on the international stage, and pissed off too many countries to count. She has been caught out in outright lies, both at the UN and at other bodies.

The ONLY UN committee that even listens to her is the C24 decolonisation committee, a committee that has repeatedly gone outside it's remit to even allow Argentina to speak before them. The remit of the committee is to decolonise territory NOT hand them over to another colonial master.

Argentina hasn't received any solid backing from any country ANYWHERE in the world. Meaningless words only, most of which are reported as support for the Argentine claim - by Argentina - when in fact all they have said is they back a peaceful solution to the Falklands issue.

This can in NO WAY be translated into full support for Argentina's claim.

The ONLY legal way for Argentina to gain the Falklands is to get an ICJ ruling. All the public opinion in the world couldn't overrule international law.

So the question you should be asking YOUR government is this: If Argentina's claim to the Falklands is so solid, why don't you take it to the ICJ and get a ruling to force the British to hand over sovereignty?

The answer is simple. Argentina has NEVER had a legitimate claim to the Falklands. It is used to distract the public from the fact that your government is robbing you.
53 Briton (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 08:51 am Report abuse
51 CabezaDura

You may or may not have a point,
But when you consider what has happened over the last 30 odd years,

The illegal invasion of an innocent unarmed peaceful islands,
The deliberate deaths of hundreds of innocent people
The abuse , insults , threats , intimidation , the abusive lies, the discussing attitude , the threats of isolation and the endless protests to the UN , merely in fact to cover up her own corruption,
We ask you..
Do you honestly think argentina deserves to rule these islands,
Let alone thinking the islanders would be queuing up to be run by you.
We don’t think so,

All they want is to be British and left alone to live in peace, without threats or hindrance from a deluded obsessed woman called CFK.
54 HansNiesund (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 08:53 am Report abuse
@51 I see what you're saying, and generally I agree. I would like to see a much more robust from the Bris, but I also think you overstate the degree of political support there really is for Argentina.

Argentina always uses the use same tactic, which is to get its interlocutors, in whatever context, to sign up to some entirely anodyne statement in favour of peaceful resolution of a dispute, which nobody could possibly object to, and then to go round portraying this as support for the Argentine claim. It isn't, and nobody is fooled by this except Argentina's own population. Nobody but Argentina really cares that two centuries ago Argentina lost out in a minor colonial skirmish. Most people are just perplexed by the evident irrationality of wanting to wind this clock, but only this clock, back to 1833, but only to 1833, or astonished that it could lead to a war in the latter half of the 20th century. And the longer this goes on, the more infantile it appears. You can see this quite clearly in social media, not just sites such as this, but for example in the Economist, where the Argentine claim is frequently stated, but tends to get systematically demolished, and not just by Brits.

I also think the example of Israel is misplaced. It is true there has been a massive swing of opinion against Israel in recent years, but that is because a massive and evident injustice has been perpetrated and continues to be. Only Argentina believes there is major injustice in the Falklands.

And if you look at who has supported Argentina when there has been a substantive issue on the table, as in the 2008 resolution, it's not very encouraging for Argentina. What you get is your fellow Latam populations, no surprise, crazies like Iran and North Korea, dictatorships like Syria and Belarus, and a few others who fear the principle of self-determination for their own reasons, such as Russia, China, and India. Not enough to carry the vote, and not very edifying company to be in.
55 Redrow (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 09:15 am Report abuse

Your comments are perfectly reasonable and together with Simon you are the two most moderate, intelligent Argentine posters I have seen on here. I don't particularly disagree with anything you have specifically said however there is a crucial point that you need to understand - even if every single country on earth asks us to transfer the FIs to Argentine sovereignty we cannot and would not do it without the freely-expressed approval of the islanders. There are only two circumstances that could change this, one would be another invasion that this time we failed to repel and the second would be if the ICJ ruled in favour of Argentina. However, you must be aware by now that your country refuses to take the UK to the ICJ because despite what they taught you in school, the Argentine claim is desperately weak and riddled with problems. The Malvinas are an illusion used by successive Argentine administrations to divert attention away from their own failings. Before Peron the issue had been settled for the nearly 80 years. Therefore it only remains an issue today because Nationalist politicians raise it for political purposes. If you want Argentina to be truly respected as opposed to merely paid lip-service too, then your people should unpick the Nationalist lie that was drilled into them as children and start to treat the FIs decently, as a small SA neighbour, rather than as another territory to obtain and rule. That would be a success you really could be proud of.
56 Briton (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 09:24 am Report abuse
I fully agree with Redrow..
57 lsolde (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 09:40 am Report abuse
@55 Redrow,
Excellent analysis, Redrow.
Thank you.
58 GFace (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 11:33 am Report abuse
CD, I just can't see how “Argentina is winning politically.” Sorry but that really is a statement that comes from inside the bubble. True, they are getting predictable wins in party line “roll call” votes with respect to latam or anti-north solidarity. But some of these votes are empty platitudes as Hans says. They may even say that they are recognizing AR has a claim or even siding with that claim but nothing that can give them any traction in getting the islands or its people. But your government takes these empty passive signs of “support” to their electorate and party loyal to get points, once again, ringing the Malvinas bell for the people to drool in cue while the country quivers. But when the rubber hits the road there is no traction getting closer to their goal. In contrast, the FIG IS meeting with business and some political groups in these countries. Much as you do when the people at the top are well, sorry, idiots, they meet with the people “who get things done” and whom the people at the top need to float their country (and their own careers). And these governments that don't want to be seen with them in public are letting this happen because they know that this is a no-lose situation. If the oil doesn't pan out as the optimists hope, its no loss to them, if it does, then this will be good for these companies and good for their countries. And honestly, just look for example at YPF/Reposol and Lan-Argentina's hangar, the FIG has burned no one and doing so doesn't seem to be part of their business model. I mean really, the Islanders come off as small yes, but solid and plucky, and *mature.* Once you leave the “solidarity bubble” the current stance of Argentine's government is one of childish unrepentant and cynical colonialism that no one would want to be on the receiving side of - being driven to frothy unhingedness because of ONLY 3000 people, and that just isn't a good look for them as government -- or for you as an Argentine citizen.
59 CabezaDura (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 01:16 pm Report abuse
@52That is “if” there is commercially viable oil to be drilled. Always big money talks loudly than politics?? So how come did the great European superpowers go to war in 1914?? I’m not saying that money is on the backseat but countless wars shouldn’t have taken place if the world worked like that... Now there is a very important player that both Argentina and Britain should want on their team and that is Chile. Gaining the full support of Chile is pretty much key, but that is over topic...
The conflict itself of course was stirred up by Peron which was a very cunning politician, back in the late 40s and 50s as he knew the former colonial powers where giving away, land, territories, and countries as fast as they could, it just looked really bad and old fashioned in Europe at the time and the communists and nationalist movements were thriving in Asia, Africa and the Middle East. Peron just tried to take advantage of this, and in fact he almost had is way, I’m pretty sure you know that the British foreign office almost agreed with him to lend it over as a lease back weeks before he died. But you must understand and be realistic that after losing the war it become far more difficult to settle anything at all as there were dead people on each side and Argentina has now a bruised pride, (as you see we don’t fight that many wars to redeem ourselves on the battlefield) and that’s quite difficult to amend even for cunning politicians. Now I’ve more or less pointed out that Argentina has the upper hand politically, just by keeping the conflict alive since 1982 and making headlines from time to time and you guys repeat time and time again in different ways that Argentina is in a deadlock and that ultimately there is no way that the islands will become Argentine. Well it may sound strange but ultimately it’s really not about who owns the islands it’s about the conflict itself and what is stirred around it on both sides. -to be continued-
60 HansNiesund (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 01:36 pm Report abuse

That's exactly it. The conflict is an end in itself. It's not being stirred up to be resolved, it is being stirred up to perpetuated. And I suspect that this is why the FO is not fighting harder. Firstly because there is no real need to, and secondly because it would just be feeding the troll. But you do have to ask who benefits, and its clear its not any of the three peoples concerned.
61 Gordo1 (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 01:39 pm Report abuse
@ 59 CabezaDura

Are you aware of the importance of the Arena Southern Treaty? This document can only be interpreted in one way - Argentina recognised British sovereignty over the archipelago of the Falklands/Malvinas in 1850, the year this treaty was ratified by both parties.
62 LEPRecon (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 01:43 pm Report abuse
@59 - CD

Argentina hasn't gained anything. The Falklands 'cause' is used by your politicians for one thing and one thing only - to distract the massess from their inept and corrupt governance.

It's a ploy used by dictators and nationalists the world over. Pick an enemy to 'unite' the people. Point out some 'perceived' wrong that that enemy did to you. Blame them for ALL of your woes.

Hitler used it. “The Jews were responsible for the ills of post war Germany. They made money of the back of the poor honest hard working German. It was all their fault. All of Germany's woes were their fault.”

Add that to total government control over what is taught in schools, and you have mass indoctrination and an enemy whose 'fault' it is.

Argentina have gone down EXACTLY the same root. Pick an enemy. In this case the British. Pick a perceived wrong. The mythical Malvinas. Accuse them of stealing Argentine land, and completely control what is taught in schools so you can indoctrinate the masses.

So now you have generations of Argentines believing in outright lies, who honestly believe that if somehow...just somehow they could gain the mythical Malvina's then ALL of Argentina's problems would disappear like magic.

Only none of it is true. It is a lie, based on lies, that have been proved to be lies.

As for Argentina having the upper hand politically, I disagree. Only in Argentina are the Falklands constantly reported on. In the UK you rarely hear about it. In other foreign news agencies it rarely gets a matter how many hissy fits your President throws at the UN.

Your politicians are seen around the world as a joke, as are your diplomats. NO ONE takes them seriously EXCEPT the Argentine public.

The Falkland Islands Government on the other hand has been winning the political game. They've been getting out there exposing Argentina for the liar it is, and the world is listening.

Argentina lost any right to the islands in 1982. You lost - get over it.
63 Redrow (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 03:30 pm Report abuse
@59 CD

Say Argentina went to the ICJ and lost then would you, as a clearly reasonable, intelligent person, accept that and oppose any further attempts to get control of the islands and its people? Or, knowing that your attempts to gain control of the islands were illegal, would you still want Argentina to work politically to force your will on the islanders?

You clearly understand Peron's role in starting the dispute and you presumably know about the Southern Arana treaty, Latzina map, Conquest/ Extinctive Prescription etc, therefore you must have worked out that (despite what your leaders say in public) Argentina has almost no chance of acquiring legal title. You mention Argentina's “bruised pride” but Argentina's greatest shame should be over how its ground forces behaved and the despicable way they treated the islanders and their property. Your country has had 30 years to dissociate itself from the shame of how it treated its little neighbour and yet you still talk about Argentina getting the upper hand politically. Upper hand over whom - the guy with a gun in his back forced to play your national anthem over the radio? Do you really want to shame yourselves again, albeit with political rather than military subjugation?

You are quite correct that 50-years ago Britain secretly considered transferring sovereignty, but the islanders objected and it was halted. The invasion changed everything forever and now you can never get back to that point again - not least because UN self-determination would not permit us to force a BOT to do anything it didn't want to - those days are long gone. You can keep poking the bruise if you want, but the best thing is just to forget it and it will eventually fade.
64 CabezaDura (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 05:00 pm Report abuse
@63 As a matter of fact I DO THINK Argentina should take the case to the ICJ, but it must agree with the UK to go The Hague only after the last of the people that fought on the islands on both sides are dead, and accept whatever outcome it may have... I also believe the first and foremost evidence and reasons that the government to whom should deliver as to why the islands are argentine is to the Argentines, that died and paid for the war and even risked a double front war with Chile and the UK. Most of you people are increasingly trying to morally judge me for some reason, I wasn’t even born in 1982, and again I’m only stating what I think, as for the islands themselves I don’t really care that much about them I’m more interested in the complete background, I do have a passion for politics and history but not the islands as such nor the sovereignty dispute. Now I know a lot of you people don’t like us, and many Argentine bloggers don’t like you either, that’s fine by me, nobody is obliged to like everybody, but I at least I demand respect as an individual in return, because I don’t think I have disrespected anyone so far
65 ChrisR (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 05:12 pm Report abuse
44 CabezaDura

The SAS were ordered to destroy an airstrip prior to a decision being made as to whether a successful inland strike could be achieved. Denial of use was imperative to the strike.

In the end the SAS failed and the helicopter flew beyond the target and landed, the crew giving themselves up.

The SAS walked out of Argentina and were never caught.

Hardly an invasion.

I hope TMBOA goes to the ICJ in the small time she has left robbing the country, but you and I both know that there is little chance of that.
66 CabezaDura (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 05:25 pm Report abuse
@65 Well, nothing to do with what you said yesterday is it??
67 GFace (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:03 pm Report abuse
@64, by the time all parties alive in 1982 are gone, a hypothetical ICJ claim for the Island's to be acquired by Argentina will be even weaker just by benefit of their increased self-determination between 1982, now, and this future date. It is already weaker than it was in *March* 1982 simply due to the changes that have occurred between the BOTs and London. Heck, it could even be a member of the commonwealth, but in any respect, its semblance to its “old-school” colonial past will be a ancient history. The weak claims for Argentine sovereignty will stay the same, and the rights of the islanders at that date will be even stronger. And the “forget 1982! what 1850? always remember 1833, and absolutely ignore any presence and rights of the Islanders since then” meme will be as tired and dishonest to the Islanders then as it is now (and the court as well).

Waiting is NOT a winning strategy for Argentina w.r.t. the ICJ. Its not a winning strategy now either.

And I don't understand how you feel you've been treated or “judged” unfairly here. It's clear that you have contrarian perspectives on elements of the post-Peron take on the Islands. You don't repeat the oft-repreated and easily refuted lie here that the Islanders were denied self-determiatoion by the UN. And indeed, you have been engaged, and rather positively and indeed respectfully compared to some of the La Campora and Malvanitas who come here denying any right of the Islanders, and said engagement has reflected it.
68 LEPRecon (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:19 pm Report abuse
@64 CD

If you truly have a passion for history then you should forget everything that you were spoonfed in school, and access independent sources.

You will see WHY the Falklands are not now, nor have they ever been Argentine.

1: The Falkland Islands were 1st claimed by the British in 1690, where they got their name - Falklands.
2: The French set up a colony in 1764 and the British in 1765. Neither colony knew of the others existence.
3. The Spanish kicked the French out - and they left without a fight. The Spanish kicked the British out - who returned and gave them such a spanking that they apologised profusely, and returned everything they stole from the original British colony, as well as paying reparations.
4. Both the British and Spanish left the Islands to fight in the Napoleonic wars. Both countries retained their claims to sovereignty.
5. The British gave Vernet permission to set up a colony on the Islands.
6. The British protested when the United Provinces of the River Plate, in Montevideo, tried to set up a penal colony on British territory.
7. The penal colony was set up, despite the protests, and the British despatched HMS Clio to remove it.
8. When HMS Clio arrived on 3 Jan 1833 they found that the UP soldiers had mutinied, murdered their commanding officer, raped his wife in front of her children, and were running amok around the Islands, threatening the civilian colonists who had been there several years.
9. HMS Clio ordered the UP penal colony to leave, which they did WITHOUT a shot being fired.
10. The civilian colonists remained voluntarily under British rule.
11. In the 1840's Spain renounced it's claim to the Falklands and saluted the Union flag there, recognised British sovereignty.
12. Argentina signed the treaty of perfect friendship with the British in 1850, stating there were NO outstanding disputes.
13. 1863 - Spain finally recognises Argentina's independence.
14. 1982 - Argentina tries to steal the islands - they're defeated.

The End
69 Redrow (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:20 pm Report abuse
@64 CD

Please read no disrespect into my words - indeed I called you “reasonable”, “moderate” and “intelligent” whereas most Malvanistas on here are the polar opposite.

I am pleased to hear that you would support taking the case to the ICJ and presumably your assumption is that you would win because at school you were taught that the British are illegally occupying the islands. I would be interested to know why you believe Argentina has not taken us to the ICJ before then? In fact with regards to South Georgia three times we tried to take Argentina to the ICJ, actually filing the case on the 3rd occasion but each time your country refused to go. Look it up, it's all well documented. Then do some reading on the 1850 agreement your country signed with mine, resolving ALL differences. Then find out about Extinctive Prescription and the fact your country failed to take the case to either the World Court or the ICJ within 50-years of their founding. Then find out about the UN's view on self-determination and whether the UK is in breach of any UN resolutions (clue: we aren't). You say you have a passion for politics and history so use your good sense to see Las Malvinas for what they are - a politically-convenient nationalist fantasy, a smokescreen. If enough Argentines cross this rubicon then you can lead your country out of its decline. Letting go of Las Malvinas will be the making of your country.
70 Gonzo22 (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:44 pm Report abuse
@ 64 No ones likes you because no one likes sepoys, no matter how many times they tell you “I like you”, everybody knows what you are made of.
71 Gordo1 (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:53 pm Report abuse
@ 70 Gonzo22 - You use the English “sepoy” as a translation of the word used in Argentina as traitor “Cipayo”. The sepoys were traitors to no-one and, anyway, Cabeza Dura is neither “sepoy” nor “cipayo” - he is that rare person, a reasonable Argentine contributor to this discussion.
72 HansNiesund (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 06:58 pm Report abuse
So a sepoy is an Argentine who isn't positively foaming at the mouth?
73 CabezaDura (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 10:08 pm Report abuse
No I’m not accusing you of anything, it’s difficult for me to maintain an ordered thread of comments because people raise so much different points at a time and return to what I said earlier, mix up and move up and down some questions that have already been mentioned in the thread, I more or less try to summarize a general response but a lot of points end up falling out. I was referring to that I won’t go into this business of having to apologize and morally justifying myself if I’m inquired if it’s ok absolutely everything thing Argentina does or if it was right for soldiers taking a dumps in the post office or in the islanders property, placing a gun at the radioman’s back and stuff like that... I know where that kind of talk eventually leads.
Now regarding the ICJ, I think Argentina should organize itself, check the facts it considers appropriate and organize a judicial strategy and present its case. Do I really believe that Argentina can win?? I don’t know, I’m not a lawyer, you know yourselves that I’m not convinced that much, but I will back my country none the less. Of course I recognize that somebody else may be right, I just think it’s the best way to move forward. Simple as that
74 GFace (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 11:01 pm Report abuse
@73 Indeed, the sooner the ICJ rejects the claim (and I think it will) the sooner Argentina can indeed move forward. This obsession with La Malvinas is just NOT healthy, too easily played by the corrupt, incompetent and malicious, and the sooner Argentina can see the Islanders and neighbors and potential partners in various South Atlantic enterprises the better off all parties will be.
75 Stevie (#) Sep 19th, 2013 - 11:21 pm Report abuse
Sure, but the Brits should STILL leave...
76 CabezaDura (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 12:09 am Report abuse
However there is something I’m interested in asking British bloggers here, for achange since it has something to do with winning the hearts and minds of your own constituency too as well as in the world in the digital age.....I was watching a Max Hastings documentary the other day which ends up showing how little your youngsters now of your own history, as many don’t know about Trafalgar, Waterloo, the Falklands, etc. They are simply not thought about it in school any longer. So considering that these are your future taxpayers and voters in an ever more multicultural Britain dominated by extreme political correctness and I’m highlighting this (maybe I’m wrong) because I don’t know how do most of your growing number British Muslim, Caribbean, Asian (descended of former colonial constituencies) feel about foreign campaigns and OT in dispute like the Malvinas/Falklands and Gibraltar?? I just don’t see how can you rebuild a new national common identity, which is not at conflict with British imperial past and its present foreign policy?? In fact the UK is in for futher isolation in the future...From a outsiders point of view it seems pretty clear like you are destined to not really who you are any longer
77 St.John (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 02:46 am Report abuse
Celebrating UN General Assembly resolutions, which are not only from a previous century but from a previous millennium - Jeeez!

Half a century old UN General Assembly resolution, inviting Argentina and the UK to negociate, but Argentina has absolutely nothing but poverty and a century-old tradition of corruption to offer the Falkland Islanders.

Although the resolution clearly demands the result to be in ”the interest of the population of the Falkland Islands”.

Joining Argentina is in no way in the interest of the population of the Falkland Islands and thus clearly against the resolution - how can that be so extremely difficult to comprehend?

@ 70 Gonzo22
“No ones likes you because no one likes sepoys”

- and those are the words from a punkawallah, who doesn't even know who a sepoy is - no wonder Argentina is such a mess, half-baked at best.
78 lsolde (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 05:41 am Report abuse
@77 St John,
l'll also bet that he has no idea what a dhobiwallah is, or the dhoodwallah, or any other of those fading terms.
Dad used to call me his chota-missysahib, when l was good & just chota when l wasn't.!
@70 Gonzo22,
A Sepoy(its real meaning), is not a dishonourable title.
l don't think that any unwashed rabble, i.e. malvinista, would be good enough to be a Sepoy.
79 Redrow (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 06:53 am Report abuse
@76 CD
You make some interesting points about identity. Before WW2 we were taught that we were the greatest nation on earth and that it was our responsibility to rule the world. Of course this was a lie and they simply wanted to indoctrinate children with imperial fantasies so they would grow-up to become civil-servants or soldiers overseas. With the empire long gone, we are now taught to be much more objective / reflective about our past - which is a good thing. We don't consider it unpatriotic to discuss how we once pushed opium on the Chinese, or slaughtered people in Tasmania etc etc. Being objective we can then reasonably ask “if we were so bad then why are so many of the greatest nations on earth former British colonies?” But it also allows us to see Argentina's behaviour over the Falklands as colonial expansionism akin to its conquest of Patagonia.

Regarding teaching immigrants about British culture, yes there is a place for it but not if it means going back to teaching kids nationalist fantasy before they are old enough to know what is being done to them. Clearly we both believe that justice should prevail over the FIs issue. But perhaps because of the durability of the Malvinas myth in Argentina you have not considered whether what you were taught in school was factually accurate. Don't take my word for it, Pinedo's trial documents or Vernet's own diary reveal that much of what was put to the UN in 64/65 was a lie. Perhaps if this history was now taught honestly in Argentina the great Malvinas lie could be put to rest and your politicians forced to account for their own actions without this convenient distraction.
80 ChrisR (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 11:45 am Report abuse
66 CabezaDura

It was in answer to the final paragraph of your post 44.

Do uou not remember that?
81 Devolverislas (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 11:48 am Report abuse
Sloppy translation by Mercopress. The original article written by Bernardo Weksler
82 Gordo1 (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 12:54 pm Report abuse
@ 81 Devolverislas

Usual unconnected rubbish remark?
83 jakesnake (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 01:34 pm Report abuse
@15 That's a great question, has Argentina ever really wanted them? That's interesting as having them as a deflection point is convenient. So, when the economy is not doing well, defaulting, etc. they can deflect attention to the Falklands.

Not unlike Chavez in Venezuela. He couldn't go a day without blaming America for Venezuela's woes. But what he was doing was “deflecting from their woes.”
84 CabezaDura (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 03:47 pm Report abuse
I think you are missing the whole point I was trying to make earlier, and you’ve gone back to the Malvinas/Falklands and to Argentina. You are in a sence fanatical as well. Because you end up talking about one thing only..
I think there are a couple of miss conceptions most anti-Argentina and Falklandists here have of Argentina itself. One thing is to be taught that the Malvinas son Argentinas, because they are and not really questioning WHY they are Argentine, British or French or Dutch for example, and not actually admitting that somebody else might be right when we are wrong... It’s pretty much a lack of debating culture and that’s pandemic in argentine politics and society in many, many other topics and argentine issues. And I can give so many examples of.
But it is NOT INDOCTRINATION as such, I tell you at both primary school and high school the 2 of April is pretty much another free day for all of us and that was it... It’s not that a school class is an argentine version of a Malvinista Madrassas. It’s simply something that is mentioned and not really talked over thoroughly about it, and that is a gap for nationalism, fanatics and extreme left to take place. But the vast majority of argentines are not really interested. And I doubt that the smokescreen translates in many votes at all like many here think. But what really would be vote pulverizing for any argentine statesman is to make any sort of concessions in the matter because it will be seen as giving away and kneeling to imperialist Britain. You've seen yourselfs that I’ve been called here I traitor for just having a alternative view, just think what would it be for any argentine politicians shoes and again this is something most falklandists here don’t get
85 Redrow (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 04:59 pm Report abuse
More good points. Unfortunately most Argentine posters on here are not “hard-headed” but empty headed so don't worry about the “traitor” accusation - they are simply scared that you might be right.

Re: British Imperialism - 100 years ago Britain ruled the world. Today we are a small country, doing OK, but probably just hoping to stay top-10 for as long as we can. We have strengths, we have weaknesses - however the one thing we no longer are is imperial. There is not a single square metre of land possessed by someone else that we want to take. Even the territory we do possess we freely offer the right of self determination too (e.g. Scotland's, N.Ireland etc). Regarding the Falklands, if the islanders wanted to associate with Argentina or even become part of Argentina then we would immediately withdraw. There is simply no imperialism in defending the islanders' self-determination. I'm sure I would be sad to see them go but I would be proud that we had defended their right to choose.

So my point is that Argentina does not need to kneel to anyone. It should simply look at the islands as a small, friendly neighbour and move on.
Britain once owned Calais in northern France. We lost it long ago but we don't still cry about it. The Faroe Islands off our north coast are closer to us than to Denmark who owns them. But we don't drag Denmark to the UN. Perhaps because he have turned away from our imperial past we are more aware of other countries that have not yet made that transition. It is my honest opinion that Argentina would benefit enormously from moving on. It would be a sign of political maturity. I have no idea how you sell that to your fellow countrymen though!
86 CabezaDura (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 05:47 pm Report abuse
Yes, i don’t believe at all that Britain is imperialist any longer; as a matter of fact I believe other developing nations with rapidly growing economies around the world are the ones with real imperialistic ambitions... However the argentine public in general will perceive Britain as “imperialistic”... Now Britain is a power and has a considerable military projection all over the world, in part due to the remnants of the empire, the UK has bases in the Pacific Ocean, the Middle East, the Atlantic, the Caribbean, but is also building these top tech carriers, it has nuclear subs, the trident, etc. Not even China, Germany and India have (yet) that kind of military projection far beyond their borders (which now days its all about, long rage missiles, strategic bombers, overwhelming fire power, Carriers, etc); however the point I was making earlier, if it will be any more use to you as clearly the western influence in the world is in retreat as we have just seen in Syria, a lot has to do with Iraq 10 years ago, yes. But fast changing demographics in western countries means also a shift of values and an identity crisis which I believe will ultimately mean that we have seen the ultimate decline of America and Europe on the world stage.
87 Redrow (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 07:26 pm Report abuse
Yes Iraq was a disaster - no doubt about that. I'm not sure what you mean about western “influence” though. If you mean “coercion by force” then yes that is on the decline but surely that is a good thing. I would argue that a more benign western influence has never been stronger. Whether it's science / inventions or football/movies/music/video games I would say that Britain/ Western Europe and America/Australia are still at the top of their game. Never underestimate the power of knowing that the other guy is smart, inventive and is selling something that you want. I would rather be admired (however grudgingly) than feared. Feared is easy, you just need guns and bombs. Admired takes talent and effort.

I'm slightly concerned that your worry is that immigration is intrinsically bad. Britain is one of the most mongrel nations on earth. We are Danish & Viking & Saxon & Celt & Pict & Norman & Hugenot & Jewish & now Pakistani & Indian etc. Apart from relatively small numbers of islamists and veil wearers, immigration has been a positive thing that gives us a ready supply of labour. I fear more for the countries losing their brightest and best.
88 St.John (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 08:19 pm Report abuse
@ 78 Isolde

perhaps we should call him a bangee or a bheestie or the mather (suits his caste and level of knowledge :)

@ 70 Gonzo22, you poor khitmutgar

a sepoy used to be a private soldier in the Mughal Empire, today a sepoy is a private soldier in the armies of Bangladesh, India or Pakistan, and they are well liked.
89 Biguggy (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 09:23 pm Report abuse
One of the last engagements where sepoys were deployed under overall British command was at Kohima in WW2 their performance at that 'engagement' was, as usual ' magnificent'.
I take my hat off to them.
90 CabezaDura (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 09:30 pm Report abuse
Oh my god, I must be talking to a political correct Briton! Why would you be concerned of what I believe in?? No I don’t think that immigration is intrinsically a bad thing, but if I did so what is the problem about that??... No you are not a mix of ALL that; you are basically Anglo-Saxons that mixed up with the remnants of Roman-Celtic Britannia, and that at certain points you were ruled by Danes, Normans and where raided by Vikings and received some small immigrant peoples at different times like Jews or protestant French. The immigrants that came here over a century ago came to a country that was scarcely habited, had no identity in itself, and they sized to be Italian, Spanish, Croatian, Lebanese or Irish as soon as they landed and became Argentine. A completely different thing is having a constant massive oversupply of unskilled labour, forming ghettos and transforming your neighbour hoods and cities into foreign conclaves. If I’m going to be pragmatic and realistic about my country, you better start being so about yours! When you have people losing their jobs after accidentally serving pork to Muslim kids at school, and having to constantly apologize for things, and self-censor what you may say, you have a real problem as a country and a nation...
And no despite the very bad publicity, western interference as I do believe, is positive in many parts of the world. And by large, nothing else is really in the way of Muslim fanatism from Saudi wahabism to extreme Shia Iran, the expansionist Chinese, and third world crackpot dictators like Mugabe or Chavez . Just for example, I remember back in 2011 watching Al Jazeera broadcast live from Benghazi while Gaddafi’s tanks where at a hour distance from the city as the people despaired in fear. Had it not being for the French RAFALEs a historic city of a million people would of been butchered and made to rubble. Ohh btw the french just prevented the whole of north Africa becoming a Islamic state
91 Redrow (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 10:32 pm Report abuse
So you don't much like Muslims then? I get it. Perhaps I was naive to think you were an elightened Argentinian.

As for Libya, the British and the French were both prime movers and Cameron was responsible for getting a reluctant Obama on board. Other than that I have no idea what any of this has to do with the UN Falklands resolution.
92 CabezaDura (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 11:01 pm Report abuse
Oh dear... If I wouldn’t like Muslims why would I bother to look at Al Jazeera an Arab news channel or why would I care if Benghazi was butchered and reduced to a pile of rubble, would I??? ... Uffff
Besides I’m not even here to be liked, like the other argentine suggested, or for people to come and say how clever, or enlightened I am, which I I’m neither. I prefer to be just a realist.
And well about been drawn off topic in here... Just follow the thread from number 30 onwards... That’s the difference between a good sport, and a bad looser
93 Redrow (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 11:26 pm Report abuse
My mistake, you're exactly like the others.
94 CabezaDura (#) Sep 20th, 2013 - 11:44 pm Report abuse
So all of a sudden when you stop agreeing with me I’m just like the other guys you post against?? Ultimately you are just as authoritarian as they are... Really man you know how pathetic, sad and a looser you look now...???
95 St.John (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 12:46 am Report abuse
@ CabezaDura

what do you care if some other poster on this forum dislikes your opinions?

I have read your posts #30 forward and it is quite obvious that you are well-informed.
96 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 07:51 am Report abuse
One minute I was having a sensible discussion with CD about the Falklands and the UN resolution which is the topic of the thread. Then we were off onto the dangers of Islam on the identity of the west. We have plenty of people on the Right in this country who bang on about this as well but fearing and blaming the outsider always leads to trouble. And most of these people never actually know or interact with the very people they fear. I know and work with many Muslims in the UK and they are very respectful and most of them are westernised and integrated. Having been perfectly friendly throughout I was called “fanatical” in 84 and “bad loser” in 92 for trying to stick to the topic of the thread, so yes my initial positive view is changing. Just because he is better informed than the others doesn't seem to have made him more considered or open-minded.
97 HansNiesund (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 08:26 am Report abuse
Just to stick my oar in, CD is an extremely refreshing change compared to the usual Malvinista posters around here.

But it is interesting that CD as so many of the others subscribes to this theory of a decadent west collapsing in the face of Islam, or the Chinese, or whatever. This doesn't seem to be much different from Galtieri back in 1982, when he believed that the Brits were already too decadent to respond to invasion by a fascist dictatorship. That was a big mistake back then and it would be just as big a one now.

Unfortunately for this theory, change isn't the same as decline, although in some cases it might be. The strength of a society is in its ability to respond to change, not to remain static. And in this regard, Argentina has screwed up much more than any Western country, with the Malvinas myth in particular sustaining a set of 19th century attitudes and a 1930s political culture that has done that country nothing but harm.
98 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 08:46 am Report abuse
@97 Exactly
99 Devolverislas (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:32 am Report abuse
Sloppy and biased translation by Mercopress. The original article, written by Bernardo Veksler and published in El Diario del fin del mundo on September 17th, refers to the “población” not the “people” of the Falkland Islands/Malvinas. It is a vital semantic distinction which removes, at one stroke, the right of self-determination from the Falkland Islanders.

Get your act together Mercopress!

100 HansNiesund (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:46 am Report abuse
Sometimes you have to admire DevolverIslas turning up yet again like the Black Knight in Monty Python with a theory so hopelessly discredited it's hilarious.
101 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:13 am Report abuse
@99 Dev

Didn't Spain and Argentina attempt to introduce an exception to self-determination? How did that go?

Perhaps you could settle this by going back to the UN and asking them to confirm that the FIs have no right to self-determination.
102 LEPRecon (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:13 am Report abuse
@90 CD

You show your ignorance with this post.

The Danes didn't just 'visit' and rule occasionally. They settled down and intermarried with the locals.

There is evidence of this all over, in the names people in Britain have, in place names, and in a genetic study done a few years ago.

Redrow is quite correct. Britain is a mongrel nation, which has 'absorbed' people and culture from many different nations.

I live in Birmingham. It has one of the largest muslim populations in the whole UK. I work alongside muslims everyday. They are British. They live like British people, have the same values as British people. They even celebrate Christmas, and buy their children, family members and friends gifts. Why? Because muslim believe that Jesus Christ was a prophet, and they don't actually see Christmas as a religious thing, it's more of a tradition.

The majority of muslims don't hate other religions. But since it's obvious by your post that you have never actually met a muslim, and you get all 'your' information from the internet, I'm not surprised.

Your attitude that all muslims are evil or fanatical is racist. Should I base my views of Argentinians on the Junta? I mean they murdered 30,000 people, and threw many of them alive out of aircraft into the sea? So judging by your standards ALL Argentinians are murderous fascists who throw nuns out of planes. Correct?

However, let's get back to the point of this thread, shall we?

More than half a century ago Argentina went to the UN and lied. It managed to get a resolution passed: 2065. However, despite their lies, that resolution still insisted that the wishes and interests of the Falkland Islanders be taken into account.

In 1982 Argentina broke this resolution by trying to take the Falklands by force. Argentina was defeated.

Argentina hasn't achieved anything at all regarding the FI, and the only thing you can celebrate is a defunct UN resolution that still didn't support your position despite the lies told. Pathetic
103 Biguggy (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:19 am Report abuse
@ 99 Devolverislas

Please refer to UNGA resolution 2105 voted on 4 days after 2065 where it quite clearly states that 'populations' of 'small territories' do have the right to self determination.
Similar resolutions to 2105 have been issued almost annually confirming that right. The last one being 67/134 at the end of last year. The major difference is that in more recent years they have referred to 'NSGT's'.
At the time 2105 was issued the Falklands were considered a 'small territory', official UN document A/5800Rev1 refers.
104 HansNiesund (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:20 am Report abuse
@99, @110

The belief that the UN has resolved to abandon its fundamental founding principle without actually saying so, and when the GA resolved precisely the opposite as recently as 2008, is one of the more impressive feats of self-deception on this site.

In fact, Argentina doesn't dare ask the UN for anything more explicit and substantive than 'dialogue' and 'peaceful settlement' for the same reason that it doesn't dare go to the ICJ. Because as the 2008 episode shows, it knows it would lose.
105 Devolverislas (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:51 am Report abuse
@103 Biguggy

Yes, indeed, section 10 of Res. 2105 “recognizes the legitimacy of the struggle by the peoples under colonial rule to exercize their right to self-determination and independence...”. But the Falkland Islanders are not a “people”. They are a “population”. This irks the islanders to such an extent that Mercopress willfully mistranslates the word “poblacion”.
106 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:57 am Report abuse
@95 No, precisely I don’t care! That’s exactly what I put forwards to this little kirchnerist idiot Gonzo, and Redrow, a first class intellectual coward.
Of course I appreciate my comments read, analyzed and supported, but I don’t like bitchy hypocrites that came to me patronizing me and saying how balanced, reasonable, moderate and intelligent or enlightened as long as they agree with me and when they no longer do so, and/or simply has run out of arguments, accuses me (with no real evidence at all), throws the racists or islamophobic card, and runs off. Ohh Btw the next thing he does is stigmatized me as “the rest of the Argentines”... Like if that in itself is intended to devalue what I’m actually saying, and now he is so worried of
Now he is trying to mince my words again....”Then we were off onto the dangers of Islam on the identity”. No I wasn’t its all here in the thread. I’m definitely NOT APOLAGIZING and explaining why I’m something that I’m defiantly NOT. Typical PC fascists dirty tricks.
This morning my laptop was attacked by some fucker in LA, im not blaming anyone in particular here but 1 plus 1 makes 2...
@97 The question is how a multicultural western society which means a shift in its values and perhaps even its interests and how this reflects on its foreign policy, a whole issue in itself and it may ultimately impacting on the Falklands/Malvinas issue. And yes, I believe you are weaker because of this, a nation with no identity nor fixed objectives.
I’m pretty tired of people judging the world and opinions before really understanding of how the world really works.
107 Domingo (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 12:06 pm Report abuse
It is telling that so many attempt to misrepresent the words of resolution 2065 by placing all emphasis on the phrase:

”the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)”

in isolation in order to try to impose their own politically motivated, artificial constraints

Whereas the reality is that 2065 invited both Argentina and Great Britain to:


bearing in mind:

2. the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations
3. the provisions and objectives of General Assembly Resolution 1514(XV)
4. the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)

Taking 1-4 as a whole, rather than 4 on its own leads to quite a different outcome than many propagandists frequently and wrongly misinform

It was unfortunate that a peaceful outcome was abandoned by Argentina in 1982 when it ended peaceful negotiations and instead chose to impose its will by military force through its illegal occupation of the Falkland Islands and South Georgia, ultimately resulting in Argentina's defeat

It is a sad fact the only people the Argentines can blame for the failure of peaceful negotiations of resolution 2065 to find a peaceful solution is the Argentines themselves
108 Biguggy (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 12:20 pm Report abuse
@ 105 Devolverislas

Please read item 8 of 2105, population and self-determination.

Tough shit!
109 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 12:56 pm Report abuse
“first class intellectual” - thank-you! .... Oh “coward” - missed that bit.

It's difficult to respond to this as I don't even know know what your point is now. So if you still have one then I would be glad to hear it.

As for knowing how the world works, LEPRecon got it exactly right above (102). For example, you raised Syria earlier - but have you actually been there? Because I have, I was in Aleppo the year before the war started. I know exactly where 80 students were killed in January by one of Assad's jets, I was in a room with one of his then ministers. I know well the souk and mosque that have been destroyed. I was being warned by my friends from the very start that the rebels were no better than Assad. I have heard terrible stories not even reported in the press. Therefore if I offer an opinion on Syria then I am not simply repeating something I read on the internet but am expressing a view based on personal experience. So when you said the US had been brilliantly outplayed by Russia and Syria, what is it that you know about “how the world really works” that informed that view?

Frankly though it would be more interesting to return to the thread and discuss the relative merits of the UN resolution, since on that subject at least you did appear to know more than most of the other Argentine contributors on here.
110 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 01:56 pm Report abuse
@97 Galtieri dint see as UK as weak, you are getting it wrong, he knew full well that Britain at the time wanted to get rid of the islands rather than having to as clash over them and that UK was cutting the UK to back its defense spending.. After the Suez crisis it was obvious throughout the world that the US leadership would not allow the old colonial powers and there problems interfere with its own geopolitical interests. And in fact the relation between the US and the Argentine Junta was significantly improved when President Carter left office. The Americans knew of the coup within the coup, and Galtieri was received with open arms in Washington, in October 1981 because at that time during the cold war many Latam generals travelled to attend summits and conferences and Galtieri was given a clear un formal blink by Americans as the next interim president of Argentina. Galtieri felt very safe and secure about this.
@102 I feel that for some time you have just been over reading my comments searching for silly little details instead of the general idea I’m trying to put across, just for the sake of refuting me ...In Genetics there is something called the Hardy-Weinberg balance which basically means a population which shares a group of genes buffers itself back to its original proportions in successive generations after factors like mutation, migration of groups of individuals with a different gens, etc may temporally modify these proportions(under certain conditions). The question is if this crossing really happened long enough and in the numbers to actually break the balance. Sure the Danes may have left some names for places and surnames in Yorkshire, but it’s likely that those genes where already there as the Anglos and Jutes I mentioned earlier came after the Roman legions left, came from DENMARK. Needles to say at that time the “intermarrying” you speak of was pretty much rape, and poor serfs been used by their Viking overlords
111 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 03:23 pm Report abuse
Interesting point regarding Hardy-Weinberg though for this principle to apply, a series of assumptions must be true. These include no migration, random mating (i.e. no in-breeding) and no limit to population size, all of which are violated by the realities of British social history. That said, Hardy-Weinberg probably DOES apply substantially to Britain and Ireland but only to make us based on our neolithic, pictish ancestors. The Anglo-Saxon genetic input (in England) and Celtic input (in Scotland & Ireland) is surprisingly limited. I heard Bryan Sykes speak on this about 10 years ago and it is fascinating stuff. I think he still runs a company that will screen your mitoDNA if you want to know your ancestry.

You make interesting comments about Galtieri's misreading of the likely British response in 1982. What is your view on the Argentine government's complaints about the current British military presence in the FIs? Do you consider it a direct threat to Argentina, or, the minimum deterrent necessary to prevent Argentina miscalculating our defense intent again?
112 LEPRecon (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 03:34 pm Report abuse
@110 CD

Actually archeology AND genetic evidence shows that more than 'a few' Vikings of both Danish and Norwegian heritage arrived in the UK and Ireland.

Some of them did the 'rape and pillage' that you speak of, but many, many more put down their roots, and intermarried, to such a degree that it is evident in the 'genes' of the 'Anglo-Saxons' of today, especially in the North and East of the country.

Again, your post is erroneous and meant to distract from the topic at hand - and that topic is Argentina celebrating a UN resolution that is over 60 years old, and that they themselves broke.

As I said, Pathetic.
113 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 05:48 pm Report abuse
@112 Ohhh Jeez so went un-digging essays through the web simply because I was talking in potential?? May point was IF the Hardy Weinberg equilibrium was broken or not and for what I grasp of those links you posted is that in some places there was a significant Viking/Danish genetic component and in other parts of the country not...Apart from that what are you really trying to prove me ?? That “immigration” is good or benefiting; yes it may be sometimes...But I Just imagine then for the natives under “danelaw” it wasn’t. Here in Argentina are basically Italian, Spanish and there is a large amount of Indian ancestry around (over 56%). There is of course other minorities that settled in certain áreas like, and named places that had reminded them their own country of origin. I’ve got a friend who’s of Syrian/ Lebanese descent. Her grandparents converted to Catholicism when they arrived, as they did not seek to arrive and impose theirs. She wears very tight- slutty clothes, no burka nor veil for her ;-) and she’s aloud by her parents to date anybody who ever deity or culture he has, and she has full Argentine culture and customs...That is what integration and immigration should be like. And you don’t fool me, that is not what is going on in Europe and America.
Now I already stated what I think about the article at #30, nothing much else to add for my part, If you want to repeat what you know by heart the 500002 time on mercopress be my guest, I’m interested in the bigger picture of things... Not like making fun of Argentine poverty, economy, history, peoples etc is at least off topic with many of the articles of Mercopress...
@111It’s a bit too late for that kind of openness, I may write in a hurry mix up sentences because I don’t delete them properly, forget words, forget, comas, etc... But this time there is no coma on purpose. Political correction is the ultimate and most sophisticated form of authoritarianism and we have them in Argentina too, decid
114 Think (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 06:16 pm Report abuse
(113) CabezaDura

Debating with the Turnips here at MercoPress amounts to gastar pólvora en chimangos......
And you certainly picked some of the biggest turnips on MercoPress to debate with.....
115 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 06:34 pm Report abuse
cont- Overpaid Bureaucrats and lawyers deciding even what colour a chocolate Kinder-egg should be, taking people politicians and comedians to trial for simply saying innocent and common folk jokes and interfering with people’s lives...And Ohhh, I’ve seen your true colours. I take B/S from nowbody... No wonder people in your country and in Europe are turning to parties like UKIP, as people are tired of your lies and hypocrisy, it’s because of people like you, and they want people who can stand up for what they think, free speech and common western values and I don’t blame them. Now please do not address me again.
116 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 07:06 pm Report abuse
You are confusing political correctness with rational perspective. You can say what you like about the suicide bombers and the beheaders, you can complain about the veil wearers - fine, I really don't care. But like LEPRecon, I live in a city with a large Muslim community and the vast majority of muslims are well integrated and make a hugely positive contribution to our society. Any problems that do exist should be resolved calmly by education and discussion. We have a tiny fringe of right wing nutters (the EDL) who try to blame all our problems on the muslims, but most people are smart enough to ignore them. When you wrote yesterday about Argentine schooling I found that interesting because you have been to school in Argentina and i haven't therefore your view on that is more informed than mine. Yet here you accuse LEPRecon of trying to fool you over immigration in the UK. But he wasn't. We live here and we are telling you the Muslim “problem” has been dangerously overstated. I'm also amused that you accuse me of intellectual cowardice and yet when I ask you a straight question (111) you say it is too late for openness.

The reason I compared you with the other Argentine posters (like “Think” here) is that when struggling in a discussion they resort to distraction. “Diego Garcia” they shout. This is what you did last night when in a perfectly open, reasonable discussion on the topic of the thread, you then veered off onto Muslim immigration in Europe and America. Perhaps when there is a Mercopress story on Muslim immigration we could pick this discussion up again, but for now I would still be interested to hear your view on the question I asked in 111.
117 GFace (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 07:25 pm Report abuse
@109... “Frankly though it would be more interesting to return to the thread and discuss the relative merits of the UN resolution, since on that subject at least you did appear to know more than most of the other Argentine contributors on here.”

I for one am all for that certainly (As soon as the internationally accepted arguments and conduct for such things come up the whataboutery and trolls begin to deflect) and CD has been a welcome break form the “Malvanista Madrases” (CD gets credit for THAT one!). And in particular why Argentina continues to bring up these resolutions. Resolutions that they broke in 1982 with a military invasion and have continually turned away from each time a member of the FIG has walked up to them in open forums such as the C24 and most importantly Timerman's childish conduct in February. The UK, while many of the British here have claimed repeatedly that 2065 died in 1982 (and on that I concur), has been true UN Blue on 2065 in letter and spirit. Before 1982, the Islanders caught wind of back room deals and raised cain and the UK relented. Afterwards the UK and the Islands relationship has evolved considerably beyond what Argentine has shown that it will offer them should they acquire sovereignty and “annex” them against their will. It's time to call the Argentine government out on this and say firmly that 2065 was laid to rest in 1982 and every time a member of government has turned their back on an Island representative. And the fault of it is 100% on successive Argentine governments. Not on London. Not on Stanley.

@111/6 Red, I do have to ask CD though... Have you heard the statements by your own government officials saying that [while you constitution requires a “peaceful” taking of the Islands] the only reason that there is no repeat of 1982 by Argentina is due to the strategic asymmetry in the south atlantic about which their government always complains. I think most people haven't heard that particular freudian slip!
118 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 08:25 pm Report abuse
@116 It’s funny how you reject the accusation of been an intellectual coward and at the same time hide by blaming somebody else like the other argentine posters of your own posts and responses, 1)And NO!! There is no intention of deflection, and foremost who the hell are you telling me what to talk about here???...2) And no, Though I may not be interested any longer in talking to you, I have no problem what so ever in answering any of those questions at all by other posters who are honest, and debate with fairness, though it doesn’t make any sense for me talking over and over again about UN resolutions and international law, and not because I’m trying to delegitimize the islanders self determination or support the argentine claim by rejecting any of this stuff, it’s just that I really said all I had to in this thread What I insist again to both you and this other fool leprecorn is that you go back again to # 30 if you are sooo interested.. And that’s pretty much it. Jeez I must be talking to a wall. I just don’t get what you want from me, to start bashing Argentina, joining you guys and repeating like a parrot here all the falklandist stuff for endless threads???
119 St.John (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 08:31 pm Report abuse
Thank you, 99 Devolverislas, you made my day.

A had a hearty laugh at your idea that “El Diario del fin del mundo” defines the meaning of words in the United Nations Charter. Your implied level of education does indicate the root of the Argentine problem with the Falkland Islands.

We hope against hope that you can become much wiser by reading:

UN General Assembly Resolution 2105 (XX) - (1965) - United Nations Official Document

in which it clearly says:

8. Requests the Special Committee to pay particular attention to the small Territories and to recommend to the Genral Assembly the most appropriate ways, as well as the steps to be taken, to enable the populations of those Teritories to exercise fully their right to self-determination and independence;

As you obviously were about to continue: Can it!
120 axel arg (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 08:36 pm Report abuse
I have never believed in our mendacius official history, written by the most conservative and reactionary sectors of our society, that's why i decided to investigate deeply about the historical and the legal aspects of this conflict, in my opinion, i think that you all should do the same, instead of buying so easily the historical arguments of your so loved empire in decadence.
After having investigated for years, i can say that actualy both countries had rights over the islands in 1833, the arguments are too long, and i'll explain them in my next comments.
I know that many people in this forum love emphasizing in the fact that since 1850 untill 1950, argentina's claims were very sporadic, which is true, however, it's necesary to take into account the context of those long years, due to arg. was just one more british colony during most XIX century, and the half of XX century, in fact, the empire had a high influence in the country, so, it was obvious that arg. wasn't in conditions for claiming for it's rights over the islands.
Beside, despite argentina's sporadic claims, the u. k. showed it's politic will for finding a negotiated solution for this conflict in 1968, 1974 and 1980. These objetive facts show clearly that the case has strong and weak aspects for both nations.
In 1884 and 1888 arg. suggested taking the case to the arbitration, which was rejected by the u. k., but in 1947 that country manifested arg. that it would be disposed to discuss about the cases of the dependencies from the islands (south georgia and sandwich), before the i. c. j., but it hadn't included the malvinas-falklands in the proposal. After that year, none of the nations proposed again to take the case to the arbitration.
I have always thought that if neather arg. nor the u. k. decide to give that step, is because perhaps both aren't sure of getting a positive result for their countries. So, it's necesary to resume the negotiations.
121 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:10 pm Report abuse
@117... Well that has a simple answer; the government (pro western, pro openness, etc) that wrote that clause into the reformed constitution of 1994 was quite friendly to the islanders and the approach it had with London was reengage diplomatic relations in the early 90s that had been cut during the 1980s after the war under a so called “umbrella” of sovereignty, which means neither side would back from its claim, but Argentina and Britain can resume business, cultural, or social ties and plus this they arranged (60-40% I believe it was) possible oil revenues, etc.
As you know a new government came to power in the; Kirchnerism has a more combatant left approach, at least verbally, but if it really intended to invade the islands I guess it wouldn’t have air fighters falling down from the sky and ships sinking and rotting themselves on the docks. Long ago I learnt to read intentions of politicians by their actions and not their words...
122 GFace (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:15 pm Report abuse
@120 Axel I've said this over and over again... Argentine has rejected talks with the UK. When members of the FIG), AR runs away. And the FIG are best people to talk to AR about the matter - and the UK will not betray them again like they almost did in 74/80 and repeat the Munich Agreement without consulting the people who would be most affected. The UK had all relevant parties as per 2065 there in London in February, chair set out, tea and cakes ready and your government ran yet again.

As for the ICJ, the ICJ has the islanders right to self-determination with which to contend which carries more weight than AR is willing to acknowledge and we all know that the UN did not “categorize out” the rights if the Falklanders (or Gibraltarians by their Argentina's equally cynical colleagues in Spain) as being invalid by virtue of a sovereignty dispute. That was voted down. And Argentina knows that it has little hope for the ICJ if 2013's explicit and overwhelming expression of self-determination is to be taken into account against ancient and hazy pre-1833 history (while simultaneously insisting that more recent and galvanizing events as recent as 1982 never happened.).
123 Domingo (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:17 pm Report abuse


the Falkland Islanders and the British have no wish to further negotiate with Argentina because of the “negotiation” of 1982. Argentines attacked them and killed them for nothing better than false revanchist pretensions imbibed by state indoctrination

Argentina's violence ended any prospect of negotiation

What's more, Argentina lost

I suggest this is the reason why the Falkland Islands and great Britain do not bother to take Argentine “pretensions” to the I.C.J. (as described by the British at the time they presented their arguments to the I.C.J. regarding the Falklands' then dependencies)

The necessity to resume negotiations is lost to either the British or Falkland Islanders having fought to retain their freedom from Argentine subjugation. There is nothing the Argentines can offer them that they do not already possess and both are convinced of the legality of their own position and the absolute illegality of the Argentine position

Thus it rests with Argentina as the claimant to take its claim to the I.C.J o test its merits., no more, no less

When the Falkland Islanders offered to talk - if not negotiate - earlier this year, it was Argentina that declined, neither the British or Falkland Islanders

The negotiations are bounded by the implementation of resolution 1514, by heeding the provisions and objectives of the UN Charter & resolution 1514 as well as the interests of the population of the Falkland Islanders, i.e. consultation of the Falkland Islanders.

However, Argentina rejects the negotiation provisions of resolution 2065 for a peaceful resolution

Therefore Argentina has only itself to blame for their continued failure

To believe otherwise is foolish
124 St.John (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:19 pm Report abuse
In 1850 Britain and Argentina ratified a peace treaty which by international law then in force left the Falkland Islands to Britain.

As has been shown time and again (using Argentine sources) presidents Bartolomé Mitre and Domingo Sarmiento and vice president Marcos Paz confirmed this in 1866, 1869 and 1865 resp., i.e. after the different parts and provinces of Argentina had agreed on a constitution and had been united as one state.

As long as axel arg doesn't acknowledge the real world, it is more than difficult to accept any of his writings.
125 GFace (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:34 pm Report abuse
@121.... well yeah... Despite Menem's forward momentum in creating a potentially more collegial relationship between the Islands and mainland (the only future I can see between the two) Kirchnerism backpeddling has also made it effectively impossible to retake the islands by their train wreck diplomacy (which was a dead stick anyway after 1982 and as I said upwards in this thread, well before '82) and tactically almost ensuring that they have no means to do so.. But... when someone at high levels of government makes such an unapologetically belligerent (and unconstitutional!) statement... well... when Crazy Ned the Wino says that the voices tell him he'd break in your house and kill you if it weren't for your big dog, you don't trade Spot in for a goldfish. The forces there are a deterrent not just against an all out invasion but also a self-validating stunt by irresponsible agents or friends of the current mode of government in BA.
126 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:34 pm Report abuse
I think many of the British bloggers here should of read Machiavelli...
127 St.John (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:47 pm Report abuse
CabezaDura did you read Machiavelli's magnum opus, “Discorsi sopra la prima Deca di Tito Livio”?

“Il Principe” was a brief left-hand work to get a job, a kind of CV (read the letter from Niccolo Machiavelli to Francesco Vettori 10 December 1513 and chapter 15 of “Il Principe” very carefully)
128 Redrow (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 09:48 pm Report abuse
@120 Axel
You are right of course, any case can go against you no matter how certain you are of victory. Acquisition is probably Argentina's best bet ( inheritance from Spain probably wouldn't fly for all the reasons regularly discussed here) but they might also struggle to prove settled unbroken administration between 1829 and 1833. Then the British have Conquest (acceptable in 1833 and as used by Argentina to obtain Patagonia), Extinctive Prescription and of course the original prior claim. So no there is no certainty that the UK would definitely win, but the odds would be strongly in their favour and even if they did lose, Self-Determination could still give the FIs the right to independence from us both in any case. Therefore the UK have no need to do anything since Status Quo is acceptable to us. We offered talks earlier this year but Mr T refused to show up. Even if we agreed to bilateral talks all we could offer Argentina would be to take any proposals to the islanders and if they said No then that would be that. So negotiations, even bilateral negotiations would not override the right of the islanders to self-determination. You either have to take your chances at the ICJ or engage with the islanders and convince them to associate with you. Neither option is particularly likely to succeed but the only alternative is Status Quo.
129 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:02 pm Report abuse
St. John, Some 5 years ago but what I’m inclined to believe is that many British bloggers are obsessed with very precise details , key of course for the soveregnity issue, but they don’t get the whole picture of things, and that they completely fail to understand argentine idiosyncrasy and the argentine mentality. They don’t see this as a conflict in itself not really over the sovereignty of the islands.... Michiavelli may seem very cynical indeed by today’s standards, but is a very good place to start for many of them
130 Domingo (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:09 pm Report abuse
The British mentality is very clear: if they are attacked, they shall defend themselves and fight to win. After 1982 neither the British nor Falkland Islanders have any care for the Argentine idiosyncrasies, mentalities nor sensibilities

The opinion of Argentines or the Argentine government or the LatAm states regarding the Falkland Islands is irrelevant to British and Falkland Islanders. They reject Argentina

The sooner Argentines realise and accept this matter of fact the better
131 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:15 pm Report abuse
@130 So why are you here then??
132 Domingo (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:21 pm Report abuse
@131. The same reason as you, I suspect.
133 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:26 pm Report abuse
I don’t know, I’m trying to practise and improve my English, and debating is a very good way to do it. I’ve just been here for 2 days, pretty much dragged into this particular thread….
134 Domingo (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:31 pm Report abuse
Exactly! Same here.
135 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:37 pm Report abuse
So you too opened up your account 2 days go !! Good for you, Mercopress is winning users & readers
136 Domingo (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 10:55 pm Report abuse
Nope. 2 years ago. However, we share a common objective perhaps.
137 dab14763 (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 11:05 pm Report abuse
I think many of the British bloggers here should of read Machiavelli...

I don’t know, I’m trying to practise and improve my English,

'should have read' or 'should've read', but not 'should of read'. A mistake many native speakers make because 'of' and 've are pronounced the same in continuous speech. 'of' will only be followed by a past participle if it is used as an adjective: 'a piece of broken glass'.
138 CabezaDura (#) Sep 21st, 2013 - 11:32 pm Report abuse
@137 Yeah, thank you for pointing that out, I realized I fuck3d up on that one after I posted! I’m sure I’ve done the same earlier and didn’t even realize. I open a word sheet and I write there in English and have most of my spelling corrected. Unless I post short sentences, then I dont use Word. My grammar is bad and Word can’t help me there, most of the time I simply write a sentence, then something else comes to mind so I write it down in a hurry before I forget what I’m about to say but then and I don’t delete properly what I was thinking of before, and therefore sometimes phrases and words our completely out of context. The same happened to me when I posted in La Nacion in Spanish, so….
139 malen (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 12:32 am Report abuse
137 dab if you write in spanish, only one paragraph, Im sure, but very sure, you will have many mistakes, in verbs, nouns, articles, etc.
And for me, “of” and “ve” arent pronnounced the same, in a way “should've” is unpronnounceable.
140 lsolde (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 06:42 am Report abuse
@138 CabezaDura,
You shouldn't be worried about your English.
lt is readable & quite good.
A lot better than my(basic)Spanish, l can assure you.
141 HansNiesund (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 09:16 am Report abuse
I think you're right about this. The conflict is not just about the sovereignity of the islands, but about Argentina's image of itself and its place in the world. The great irony of that is your political classes have contrived to create a situation they cannot possibly win, and cannot possibly back out of either. This isn't any kind of path to greatness.
142 Redrow (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 10:40 am Report abuse
Exactly. What i can't fathom is why it is considered more embarrassing to back out of this situation than to keep pushing against a dead end. If I accidentally walked into an office broom cupboard then I'd rather face a few titters when I came straight back out than to have people think I was mentally ill for sitting in there all day.
143 HansNiesund (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 11:02 am Report abuse

There seems to be a belief that some third force is going to come to the rescue, whether it's the UN or the Russians, or the Chinese, or Muslim immigration to the UK. What they really need is a statesman. But what they've got is Kirchner and Castro and Timerman and Filmus and Pluricelli and ......
144 LEPRecon (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 12:07 pm Report abuse
@118 CD

I did have some hopes that you were not the typical Argentine troll. However, you are now showing some amazing similarities. Diverting the thread, and insulting people when you realise that you are losing the argument.

You accuse me of being a fool, yet you are the one deliberately trying to divert this thread from the fact that Argentina lied to the UN in 1965, managed to get a resolution from the General Assembly based on those lies, and even that didn't give them sovereignty and only acknowledged that there was a dispute. It even stated that the interests of the Islanders had to be taken into account.

Then in 1982 Argentina broke this very same resolution by throwing away peaceful negotiation for aggression.

And in 2013 this defunct resolution is the ONLY thing your government can celebrate as a supposed victory! Pathetic, very pathetic.

Nothing I have said is untrue. You call me a fool because I had the temerity to disagree with the statements you made, and unlike you I produced EVIDENCE.

It appears to me that you Argentines don't like evidence. This is because you actually HAVE no evidence at all that would support your claims to sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. If you actually did you would've been at the International Court of Justice long ago.

Waiting until the last veteran of the Falklands war is dead, is a weird thing to request. Why? If your claims are so solid it shouldn't make any difference.

I have studied the Falklands history very closely, using various sources from Spain, Argentina and the UK.

From that I came to the conclusion that Argentina has lied, and continues to lie.

I have also studied the UN and the UN Charter. It is something you should actually read. It is quite a weighty document, but it is available in just about every language including Spanish.

You should pay particular attention to Chapter 1, Article 1.2 - self-determination.
145 Biguggy (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 12:30 pm Report abuse
@ 119 St.John

Please do not forget the over 40 UNGA resolutions that have followed 2105, the last being 67/134, which in item 7(c) states:
“To continue to examine the political, economic and social situation in the Non-Self-Governing Territories, and to recommend, as appropriate, to the General Assembly the most suitable steps to be taken to enable the populations of those Territories to exercise their right to self-determination, including independence, in accordance with the relevant resolutions on decolonization, including resolutions on specific Territories;”

Have a good day!
146 Domingo (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 12:45 pm Report abuse

Yes, indeed. People must be prepared to change themselves if they wish the world to change too. The ability to compromise and offer one's would be opponent the hand of friendship is the right approach. All sides should strive to overcome their prejudices and act positively.

Détente and genuine reconciliation is the right policy driven by a shared desire to make a better future together. The making of the choice for a better future by those in dispute is the first step in the journey

It is hard, but achieving the common goals of lasting peace and friendship makes it worth the effort.

It shall take politicians of vision and courage to champion such positive change and they are few and far between

Nonetheless, where there's life, there's hope!
147 Redrow (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 03:04 pm Report abuse
@146 Domingo.

Exactly. From Britain's perspective we settled all outstanding issues in 1850 and so with the Falklands issue ended then we could return to the friendly relations we had before. The desire from some for constant conflict for its own sake is tiresome and self-destructive. The world has enough real problems without having to deal with artificially-created ones based on long-dead Florentine spin doctors. Punching yourself in the face is no less dumb just because you say Machiavelli told you to do it.

Given the relative advantages Argentina has had (natural resources and european investment) it seems surprising to me that instead it should be Chile and Brazil that are surging ahead in international stature and leaving Argentina behind, both economically and politically. perhaps this will inspire a new generation in Argentina to take it in a new, more productive, competitive, politically mature direction. As you say, here's hoping.
148 CabezaDura (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 03:06 pm Report abuse
But I’m not hoping for a third party to come to the rescue at all. Not even I want to see the western world fall to the hands of political correctness and multiculturalism (which is completely different to islamification). Even I have Muslim blood that comes from an Algerian great grandmother that married a pied noir officer, before coming here
I just don’t see how o bunch of people living in a bubble in Stockholm or the Vatican City calling for peace and non intervention throughout the world, are going to stop dictators around the world to depriving their constituencies of human rights, democracy and free speech, while the apathy of the west declines into isolation and a identity crisis.
You have a lovely welsh mezzosoprano Katherine Jenkins (if I was perfect & rich I would marry her) that’s sings a requiem for a dead soldier (I don’t think she wrote it though) that says in the last paragraph “And one day you'll see we can live together
When all the world is free” and what that basically means is that democracies don’t go to war with each other, and the will be peace once the whole world enjoys governments representing the people…
I’m sure that when fundamentalists, thugocrats of China and Russia and dictators clash with politically correct idealists in power they wil have no respect whatsoever for them, and outplay them easily … Ohh and they will be coming for you eventually. Just wait and see
149 Redrow (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 03:53 pm Report abuse
“Ohh and they will be coming for you eventually. Just wait and see”

You forget that this has already happened to us 60 years ago. Hitler flattened many of our towns and cities, my own mother narrowly survived death in the Blitz. Then in the cold war we built secret bunkers and tunnels and regional war rooms and hundreds of observation bunkers so as to ensure some kind of survival beyond a potential nuclear holocaust. Just because we stopped being imperial doesn't mean we turned into soft-headed hippies who wouldn't defend ourselves and our interests as Gen Galtieri discovered. But equally, Queen Victoria is long gone and so we don't sail round arbitrarily threatening people either. Think of it as a no first-strike policy with an occasional policing action thrown in. The rest of the time we are perfectly lovely.
150 HansNiesund (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 05:21 pm Report abuse

Does your dislike of dictators mean you supported or would support intervention in Iraq, Libya, Syria?

The thing about Brits and dictators is that we've taken or helped take quite a few of their scalps down the years, Galtieri, Saddam, Hitler, Napoleon, Milosevic, the Kaiser, various kings of France and Spain, not to mention the odd king or Prime Minister of our own that got a bit too big for their boots. I don't quite see how political correctness and milticulturalism means we have to find another national sport.
151 CabezaDura (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 06:15 pm Report abuse
@148 I’m not saying all interventions are good but those 3 cases you brought up are all different, one of them was actually successful
As St Thomas Aquinas said “In order for a war to be just, three things are necessary. First, the authority of the sovereign. Secondly, a just cause. Thirdly, a rightful intention”
And this principle hasn’t been applied by the decision makers over the last decade in the west

The greatest problem you will have is that you’re politicians will be increasingly having to go beyond your lengths to apologize make everyone happy in its constituencies and this is already happening. Unlike WWII and the cold the west had a clear leadership, an identity and a clear goal, and nowadays you do not have so any longer due to political correctness and multiculturalism simply because the values that all these minorities cherish a different and they don’t adopt the local ones, but eventually they will replace them. Things that need to be done and the decisions that have to be made can never be done. Just imagine getting all the people here in Mercopress to agree on something, it’s just impossible.
And yes, sure the UK can afford to back down from the Syrians gassing the suburbs of Damascus, but not the Americans. If you are going to preside over a coalition in the Middle East that ranges from NATO all the way to Israel and Saudi Arabia you have to show a clear leadership, if you say that a red line is A, then when A is crossed you act, because the people opposing you are not idealists nor PCs, when they see weakness, they take. Besides you can’t have the Israelis and the Saudis doing things by their own hands and now they will be encouraged to do so as they feel they are alone with no leader.
152 Domingo (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 07:59 pm Report abuse
In fairness to 'the West' in their interventions of the past few decades claim to act within the authority of the UN Security Council resolutions; thus some semblance of the rule of international law under the UN Charter is upheld; some actions to enforce international peace and security are more convincing then others, whilst the dubious ones discredit the just actions

Continued reform of the U.N. is desirable, provided the U.N. remains capable of just action when necessary; it tilts all to close to the abyss of the League of Nations

It reminds of Churchill's lamentation:

Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried!“

with the further qualification:

”The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter”

At the supranational level, I fear the United Nations by analogy fairs no better, yet it is the best system we have and thus we must use it
153 A_Voice (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 09:16 pm Report abuse
“Even I have Muslim blood that comes from an Algerian great grandmother that married a pied noir officer”
Muslims are followers of's not a race, it's a get Muslim blood you simply adopt the religion.....
.....and that great grandmother's religion died with her so you don't have Muslim blood at all!
154 ChrisR (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 09:30 pm Report abuse
153 A_Voice

You are correct about adopting Islam if you are a kuffer.

However, if your father IS a Muslim then YOU are a Muslim when you are born. It's part of the religious nonsense that is Islam.

You see that as Obuma was born of an Islamic father HE is also a Muslim.

Please check this out for yourself before you start to berate me.
155 A_Voice (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 09:54 pm Report abuse
I'll take your word for it, as you must have checked it out....
I thought Obuma swears he's not Muslim...
156 Redrow (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 11:23 pm Report abuse
Exactly Domingo. Britain and America are damned if we do and damned if we don't. There is a small but growing sense that we might as well be damned for not intervening. Although I don't personally subscribe to that view, I can at least see the attraction of it. We have long been a convenient target for tinpot leaders trying to show that they can kick the old imperial dog and not get bitten.

Perhaps if the UNSC had provided strong leadership at the time of the attack it might have been possible to hold Assad to account. I wonder who held the Presidency of the UNSC in August and could have delivered that robust leadership? Oh that's right - Argentina. Then at the G20 when Obama tried to get support for intervention who sided with Putin & Assad? That's right - Argentina. You said earlier (47) that you were impressed with the diplomatic support that Argentina had mustered over the last “3-4 years” (i.e. during CFK's time in office). Well the cost of that support has been the repeated selling-out to the very tyrants you think should be faced down.
157 A_Voice (#) Sep 22nd, 2013 - 11:39 pm Report abuse
“You see that as Obuma was born of an Islamic father HE is also a Muslim.”

....and that's the last time I take someones word for it....
Bloody urban myth....
“His thoughts on religion can be gleaned much more easily from his books, where he describes his biological father as a ”confirmed atheist“ and his mother as an ”agnostic“; about his stepfather, whom he describes as a ”nominal Muslim,“ he writes, in The Audacity of Hope:”
In Obuma's own words:
“I was not raised in a religious household.
My maternal grandparents, who hailed from Kansas, had been steeped in Baptist and Methodist teachings as children,”
....I don't think a stepfather makes you a Muslim ....shame on you leading me down the garden path!
158 CabezaDura (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 12:23 am Report abuse
@153&154 That’s true, but I have none the less a drop of Arab blood and that goes to some fools here that called me islamophobic and racist…
@152 Yes Domingo, I dont desagree with any of that. But it must be said, In the very recent past we have seen some powers act surgically and swiftly and with much less fuss, without going through the UNSC, as the case of Russia which intervened in the Georgia-South Ossetia & Abkhazia (2008), it simply invoked the need to defends its interests...And an interesting case is France that continues to play a successful and positive roll in North Africa assisting the removal of the illegitimate Gbagbo of Cote D’ Ivory (2010), it saved Mali in a crucial moment in the war against AQIM(2013), and of course in Libya(2011) and all cases with formal UN backing. As the French did not get involved in Irak 2003 the clearly have a moral high ground over UK & US, and also getting the job done!
159 St.John (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 01:18 am Report abuse
@ 154 ChrisR who writes:

“However, if your father IS a Muslim then YOU are a Muslim when you are born. It's part of the religious nonsense that is Islam.”

- and if your father is a hunter-gatherer, then you are a hunter-gatherer - so nobody ever left the stone age.

You are absolutely right about nonsense.
160 LEPRecon (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 05:44 am Report abuse
@158 CD

An amusing post. “I have none the less a drop of Arab blood and that goes to some fools here that called me islamophobic and racist…”

You continue to insult people - that means you have already lost the argument, and you are a racist because of what you said, not of where you come from. It's like someone who says 'all black people are criminals' then turning around and saying “I'm not racist because I have a black friend”.

This started because you made some sweeping generalisations.

You also said “I’m pretty tired of people judging the world and opinions before really understanding of how the world really works.”

This is a bizarre statement, that I'm not sure if it hasn't lost something in translation.

Who are you to judge how other people see the world? Everyone sees it differently as everyone's experiences and knowledge is different.

You have constantly put down your own opinion - which you are completely entitled to do - and then tried to pass it off as fact. And when people disagree with you, you insult them. That isn't very mature, is it?

However, you do at least put arguments forwards, which whilst I do not necessarily agree with, I respect your right to do so. It's a pity that you don't extend that same curtesy to others though.

This is meant to be a discussion, where people of differing viewpoints can put forwards their arguments on the merit, in this case, Argentina celebrating a diplomatic 'success' over 60 years ago.

Yet you have constantly tried to divert the thread. You insult people who don't agree with you, and deny them any respect as human beings, because if they don't agree with you, then they are 'fools' and you don't want to talk to them anymore.

You should try growing up, and treat everyone on here as you yourself would like to be treated. You don't have to agree with them, but insulting them reveals your immaturity.
161 Redrow (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 06:30 am Report abuse
@158 CD
It is one thing to support and call for conflict against Muslim countries all over the map, but you do so safe in the knowledge that it won't be your country doing any of the fighting or suffering any of the consequences. My country has lost 100s and 100s of our finest young soldiers fighting in these wars, so yes for the next few years we may well be weighing up more carefully what is actually in our own nation's interest rather than acting at the behest of armchair-generals from countries who actually oppose us. Anyway, if you are that concerned about showing weakness to your increasingly empowered muslim relatives then why don't you go and fight them rather than calling for others to do it. As LEPRecon says above you have let yourself down badly with this display of immaturity. You say you are debating on here to help improve your English. Well your English is fine, it's your debating skills that are the problem.
162 CabezaDura (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 06:52 am Report abuse
“You continue to insult people - that means you have already lost the argument, and you are a racist because of what you said, not of where you come from.”Please tell me exactly WHAT DID I SAY THAT IS RACIST, what are these so called “generalizations” I made??
I know how politically correct cowardly tricks work, blaming people as been racist or islamophobic because they lack of arguments or simply can’t face the truth. I said before that I wanted respect and I will respect in return, even though you didn’t like me as an Argentine or whatever. Should of taken that in mind, if i insulted you is because you have broke my patience...
I’m pretty tired of people judging the world and opinions before really understanding of how the world really works.” WELL YES, AND I REST MY CASE
You yourself try to impose this business of “following the topic” as if it’s followed meticulously in many other MP articles. Your objective of course is to censorship my opinions beforehand… You claim that I’m here to “divert” or “deflect”, and I responded repeatedly to you and the other guy many times that I already said what I had to say, and yet you are still bothering and bossing me telling me what to talk about… How don’t see how come I’m preventing you or anybody else talking of this article. Why don’t you talk about this resolution with Redrow if you are so interested?? I will not stop you, and no intention of doing so
Yet falklandists, anti-argentinests thought they can just run over me…. You are so full of yourselves bashing Argentina and thinking all Argentines as idiots…Now I don’t know what other argentines have written or what kind of fights you had over with them, - I admit I was particularly embarrassed by a what I presume to be a kirchnerist, trying to prove I don’t know what, by celebrating a accident in Toronto where people were killed- but rest assured that I will never take the same kind of bullying, B/S and disrespect that some of the Argentines take here..
163 LEPRecon (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 07:35 am Report abuse
@162 CD

Thank you for proving my point.

Your immaturity is now shining through. God forbid that someone wants to continue to comment on the subject of the thread. God forbid someone has a different opinion to yours.

I am not anti-Argentine. Where have I said that?

I have no problem with Argentina or Argentines EXCEPT when it comes to the Falkland Islands, and Argentina's aggressive attitude towards it.

It has been over 30 years since the Falklands War. 30 years in which Argentina could've proved that they were not like the Junta. 30 years to build bridges of friendship and trust.

And just what has Argentina done in the intervening 30 years? It has burnt bridges. It has acted in an aggressive manner towards the Islanders, trying to starve them out, and spreading lies about them at any and every forum it can find. It changed it constitution to ensure that the only outcome of any negotiations would be the full transfer of sovereignty of the islands to Argentina DESPITE what the people who have lived there for generations want.

Your government have invaiably stated that the Falkland Islanders do not exist, are not people and therefore have no rights. Your defence minister even went as far as to publicly state that if it were not for the presence of the British Armed Forces on the Islands that Argentina would invade them again, and oppress and ethnically cleanse the Islands.

If Argentina has a case, take it to the ICJ.

But the history of the Islands isn't important. What happened on 3 Jan 1833 isn't important. What is important that the people of the Falkland Islands have the fundamental human right to self-determination. So all Argentina has to do before the ICJ is to get them to overturn this fundamental right.

Not a tall order at all, is it?
164 Redrow (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 07:39 am Report abuse
“But fast changing demographics in western countries means also a shift of values and an identity crisis which I believe will ultimately mean that we have seen the ultimate decline of America and Europe on the world stage.”

It was this statement that originally concerned me as it implies that the increase in the proportion of British people who are Muslim is an intrinsic threat to our values. But the whole point is that our “values” are a distillation of the values of successive waves of immigration into our country down through the centuries and millennia. The proportion of people who come here precisely because of our values (and thus who wish to maintain them) massively exceeds (in my opinion) the tiny numbers who come here to introduce a UK caliphate. Yet when LEPRecon and I tried to reassure you that, in our opinions, the threat from UK “islamification” was dangerously overstated you started with the name-calling, “fools”, “PC fascists”, “intellectual cowards” etc. Hope that helps.
165 CabezaDura (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 01:29 pm Report abuse
@163 Leprecorn Ohh Dear, I can’t really tell for sure if you are desperately spinning this whole thing or you are just as thick as pig shit. Getting any sense into you is like running after the end of rainbow hopping to find the Leprechauns sack of gold… I 100% REST MY CASE on what I said at #161. Now piss off
@164Redrow, Listen I said to you to please not address me again, you are increasingly being an unreasonable with your ownself. Have some dignity. My ex still continues daily with all this sort of indirect approaches to me for over a year and a half only to get utterly ignored. I’m not a bad guy, and actually I’m easy going to deal with, but when someone fucks up there is no turning back. I don’t see anything islamophobic nor racist in that statement whatsoever, hell if you prejudge me then it’s your bloody problem!, you tried to fool me with cowardly PC tricks and run off when we having a perfectly reasonable and open discussion. I could very well answer any of those questions, it’s not like I’m running away from them it’s simply that I’m just no longer interested in talking to you. I REST MY CASE of what I said to you in #113, #115 and #118
166 LEPRecon (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 02:46 pm Report abuse
@165 - CD

Once again you have proved my point. Well done, keep it up.

How sad, just when I thought we actually had someone who could hold a decent discussion.

CabezaDura is an immature troll, who resorts to swearing and name calling because people don't agree with him.

Nor have you attempt to actually address any of the points I raised, like people actually do in a real discussion.

Name calling and swearing are the last resort of someone who has no argument, but cannot accept that others don't share your view of the world.

You need to grow up and accept that not everyone everywhere will agree with you.

The whole point of discussions is to put forwards opposing points of view. You don't have to agree with the other persons point of view, but you should respect that they have the right to have a different view than yours. Adults would agree to disagree.

Now run along and come back when you've matured a little.
167 Redrow (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 03:39 pm Report abuse
“Listen I said to you to please not address me again”

This is a public forum and I will address whoever I wish. You have the right to stop replying of course, though you haven't managed it so far. I'm just disappointed you went from Harvey-Weinberg to “Now piss off” in 48 hours but there you go, that's free speech for you. As for “running off” - there is a time difference between Britain and Argentina and so being late I went to bed. Sorry to disappoint you. Not sure what you mean by “cowardly PC tricks” so can't help you with that one but nothing I wrote was a trick so maybe something got lost in translation.

Anyway, it has been a lot of fun. You would probably come across better in future threads by staying calm and arguing your case rather than becoming hysterical and throwing insults. But that's just friendly advice - you fill your boots if you want to.
168 ChrisR (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 04:41 pm Report abuse
157 A_Voice

I am sorry if you think I misled you, but I think you may have misled yourself. Consider this:

CLAIM: Obama's father, Barack Hussein Obama, Sr., was a “radical Muslim who migrated from Kenya to Jakarta, Indonesia.”

STATUS: FALSE. Except in early childhood, Obama, Sr. wasn't a Muslim at all, let alone a “radical” Muslim. According to Obama, Jr., his father was “raised a Muslim” but lost his faith and had become a “confirmed atheist” by the time he attended college. Author Sally Jacobs writes that Obama, Sr. was exposed to Muslim teachings as a child but converted to Anglicanism around the age of 6, attended Christian schools into his teens, and was “a-religious” as an adult. Obama, Jr.'s parents separated not long after he was born, his father moving not to Jakarta but to the United States, where he attended Harvard. Eventually Obama, Sr. returned to Kenya.

THE KEY IS: “Except in early childhood, [age SIX] Obama, Sr. wasn't a Muslim at all, let alone a “radical” Muslim. According to Obama, Jr., his father was “raised a Muslim” [there we go!] but lost his faith and had become a “confirmed atheist” by the time he attended college.

You see, it is not me claiming if you are born of a Muslim father, YOU are a Muslim; it is the Mullahs who interpret the Koran who STATE this. And they are the people who Muslims follow, no matter what.

Also, whether you believe me or not, once you are born into the faith (as Obama Snr. WAS) OR you convert to Islam, then like “Hotel California” YOU CAN NEVER LEAVE. They kill people who leave! Or at least do their damndest to.

I know that to western secular values this sounds ridiculous and when I first came across it I did not believe it either, but I was wrong as you are now. It is all about the source of Obama’s bloodline and his father WAS a Muslim. It has NOTHING to do with his stepfather, UNLESS he inducted Barrack into the Muslim faith himself.
169 Brit Bob (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 07:22 pm Report abuse
@163 Argentina can't take its 'Great Malvinas Lie' to the UN ICJ because the ICJ has issued the following guidelines:

'a state's right under international law to acquire a non-self-governing territory against the will of the people under the theory of 'historical ties' is severely circumscribed. When applied to the territory of a non-self-governing territory the requirements are strict; it requires proof of continuous, important and formal ties of a political and economic nature in the few instances where it has successfully defeated the right of the inhabitants to self-determination.'

Even the stupidest of Argentine politicians will realize that they haven't got a chance in hell of winning a sovereignty judgement in the UN ICJ.

Page 58 refers:

Under International Law, it would be illegal to hand over a non-self-governing territory such as the Falklands without the will of the inhabitants. Eventually, other sane governments will begin to understand this.
170 ChrisR (#) Sep 23rd, 2013 - 08:18 pm Report abuse
169 Brit Bob
“Eventually, other sane governments will begin to understand this.”

Well that lets out the members of the C24 then! Mad as a bag of cats, all of them.
171 St.John (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 12:48 am Report abuse
Having read the last app 100 posts I have a disappointment for the three most energetic posters: My daddy is stronger than your fathers combined. :-E
172 Escoses Doido (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 03:12 am Report abuse
@168 ChrisR:
Ignore the plastic Scot who calls himself a voice.

The Cnut is full of shite.

I think he is a bastard in Glasgow of some Argentinian.

or a bastard in ba of some 'Weegie'.
173 Redrow (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 05:07 am Report abuse
I cremated mine 20 years ago so you are probably right.
174 axel arg (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 11:43 am Report abuse
Firstly, i would like to start talking about what i couldn't express in my comment 120.
The discovery just gives a precarious tittle, which must be improved with a permanent occupation, according to public international right, after 8 year of permanent british occupation in port egmont in 1774, the british left the place, and after that year there were just sporadic settlements of british sailors in the islands, which don't have a considerabe relevancy for public international right, due to only settlements ordered by the state are important.
Anyway, in 1790 during the discussions for the nootka sound convention, signed between spain and the u. k., it was included a secret article which let the u. k. to stablish settlements in the islands if a third power stablished setlements in the archipelago. In 1820, the united provinces stablished it's first settlements which did n0t last so much, beside, it had been published in the times in 1821, but the u. k. didn't make any protest.
In the case of the u. p., its rights were base on the sussession of states, due to unless the soldedad islands had been occupied permanently by spain, so, when our country declared it's independence, it had right to occupy all those territories which had been submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty. In my opinion, the u. k. should have negotiated a solution with the u. p., instead of depriving our country of exercising it's rights, and force the small argentine garrison to leave the archipelago.
In refrence to the right to self determination, the u. n. has always considered this cause as a special colonial situation, and that principle has never been included for this case by the u. n., as it did with other colonial situations. The non application of self det. is not an argentine caprice, it's the u. n. the one which has never applied it for this case.
175 LEPRecon (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 12:11 pm Report abuse
@174 - axelarg

I take on some of your points, but Spain and Britain NEVER reliquished their sovereignty claims to the Falkland Islands in the 18th century. Both countries left plaques there stating this. In the 18th century this was considered a legal way of holding your sovereignty title.

The UP, Uruguay, Argentina NOR any other South American country had 8 years continuous occupation of civilians on the Islands. Vernet's colony was there with British permission.

In 1833, the colonists Vernet had brought to the Islands decided to stay voluntarily under British rule. Their descendants live on the Islands today.

So what we have is 180 years plus of continuous occupation by the Falkland Islanders, and Argentina has approximately 6 months in total occupation, both times by MILITARY PERSONNEL only - no civilians colonists at all.

There has never been ANY proof that either Uruguay or Argentina 'inherited' the Spanish claim, indeed there has NEVER been such thing recognised in international law in the 18th, 19th, 20th or 21st centuries.

And even if there was such a premise it still WOULDN'T apply because Spain retained it's sovereignty of the islands until the 1840's, when they withdrew their claim and acknowledge Britain as the ONLY legal claimant left.

Also, can you provide a link to an ACTUAL UN document that supports your claim in your last paragraph where the UN has specifically stated that the Falkland Islanders DO NOT have the same rights as the other 7 billion people on the planet?

An actual link to an actual UN document?

Whereas in 2008 both Spain and Argentina were defeated at the UN when they tried to introduce a limitation on the right to self-determination in territories were there were sovereignty disputes. They failed in 2008. Where is the UN resolution that completely overturns the founding principles of the UN Charter.

I'm waiting for you to produce your evidence.
176 Brit Bob (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 01:10 pm Report abuse
@174. But the UN ICJ advice is clear, the rights of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islanders come before any sovereignty claim as Argentina cannot provide evidence of continuous important and formal ties of a political and economic nature with the Falkland Islands. Argentina's sovereignty claim is exposed as baseless.
177 HansNiesund (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 01:49 pm Report abuse

Is there any sight more bizarre than Argentina claiming to a UN decolonization committee that some principle of colonial inheritance allows it to seize a territory without regard to the fundamental human rights of the inhabitants?
178 GFace (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 02:36 pm Report abuse
@174.. NO. The self-determination applies to ALL people and cannot be trumped by a third party outside the increasingly stale C24 mandate (however dated that actual model may be on the ground in 2013) coming in and screaming “dibs!” Otherwise anyone with territorial ambitions could interfere with post-colonialist/self-determiantion/independence process.

Your government and Spain tried that before and was voted down. You know it. Everyone here knows that. It's well documented. There isn't a special official UN translation in Spanish to make the no-vote less humiliating to Argentina's and Spain's colonialist ambitions and egos. There is simply no one to keep telling that lie to here.

Why oh WHY do you and the others keep lying through your teeth about it.
179 HansNiesund (#) Sep 24th, 2013 - 04:45 pm Report abuse

> Why oh WHY do you and the others keep lying through your teeth about it.

Because life is pretty shit when all you've got is a grievance.
180 Pete Bog (#) Sep 26th, 2013 - 11:38 am Report abuse
@174 axel arg
“unless the soldedad islands had been occupied permanently by spain, so, when our country declared it's independence, it had right to occupy all those territories which had been submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty”

The Spanish ran the Falklands from what is now Uruguay (Montevideo), not Argentina.

“force the small argentine garrison to leave the archipelago.”

Yet the British sailors under Pinedo meant the UP forces outnumbered the British force, but refused to fight the British, that is why there was no resistance.

Some of the small garrison was made up of criminals, 10 of which were executed on their return to South America by the UP, as they had committed rape and murder.

Have you any evidence to suggest the British sailors on the Clio were convicted criminals?

In refrence to the right to self determination, the u. n. has always considered this cause as a special colonial situation, and that principle has never been included for this case by the u. n., as it did with other colonial situations. The non application of self det. is not an argentine caprice, it's the u. n. the one which has never applied it for this case.

“Whereas in 2008 both Spain and Argentina were defeated at the UN when they tried to introduce a limitation on the right to self-determination in territories were there were sovereignty disputes. They failed in 2008. Where is the UN resolution that completely overturns the founding principles of the UN Charter.”

Axel, the above quoted from LEPRecon, clearly refutes your claim of the Falkland Islands being a special case, unless you can prove another vote after 2008 overturned the failed Argentine and Spanish case to disqualify self determination.

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


Get Email News Reports!

Get our news right on your inbox.
Subscribe Now!