MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
“UK has no doubt about sovereignty over the Falklands and Islanders right to decide their future”
The UK Foreign Office summoned Argentine Ambassador Alicia Castro to object recent remarks regarding the Falkland Islands by President Cristina Fernandez and the diplomat based in London. An FCO spokesperson said that Britain has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and surrounding maritime areas, nor about the Falkland Islanders' right to decide their own future. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesOooh! Some-one got called into the Headmaster's Office for a spanking!
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0... bet she enjoyed that!
I imagine her bum is as Red her Govt. policies... (just a little pink, but quite popular [ist]... )
Alicia Castro, taking one for the team!
;-)
UK has no doubt, Malvinas belong to Argentina.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Richard Gott
“People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away”
Marcos,
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Will you and Richard never go away, either... ?
Troy,
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Only if you sing Aqua Marina...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0iULyLwvV-A
@2 Marcos
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0You and Richard are very quick to try and give someone else's land and homes away.
You and Richard should note that no one in the world cares about Argentine's lies. Lies created to control and distract a brainwashed population whilst your government steals all of the money that would make Argentina one of the major players in the world economy.
Any 'dispute' was settled on 12 June 1982 when Argentine forces flew the new and popular Argentine flag...the WHITE ONE.
Everything coming from Argentina's muppet government is such an obvious attempt to try and distract the unwashed masses in Argentina from the obvious FACT that YOUR government has stolen, lied and mismanaged Argentina into a financial black hole that'll make the default in 2001 look like a tiny blip.
But it's good for the UK to remind Argentina's crooked government that we are indeed keeping are eyes on you and will be ready to act against ANY Argentine interference in British sovereign territory.
Alicia should be careful. She may lose her cushy job in London and have to return to the sh!thole that Argentina has become.
Richard Gott is a now a 'left-over' from the '70s Cold War era, an elderly academic, that had respect in his day, but unfortunately is now not so recognised. I have several of his books and writings. I also have met him.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@2 Marcos Alejandro , please post a link to your quote, and the date he wrote this.
(2007, I think? some years ago?)
Although I disagree with Richard Gott on many issues, I do still respect him. I still have his email address from my academic days and can contact him directly to confirm anything you wish to say on his works.
However please note:
“Richard Gott, literary editor of the Guardian, resigned yesterday following allegations that he had worked for the KGB.
Mr Gott, 56, met the newspaper's editor, Peter Preston, after an article in the Spectator claimed that he had been recruited by the KGB in the late 70s and reactivated in 1984.”
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/guardian-journalist-recruited-by-the-kgb-1386978.html
Although Richard and I have very different political opinions, he was a great help to me when I was studying Latin American History & Politics at a very well-respected University in the UK during the 1990s. He was a great man to argue with, patient and kind, and truly did his best to convince me, whilst allowing for my voice.
A real gentleman.
Academic discussion is founded on disagreement, and mutual respect.
However, Marcos, as you are so out of your depth to engage with me on this matter, I will give you the space to speak.
I'm sure that is what Richard would want.
I will give him this.
6 ilsen
Apr 10th, 2015 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't expect others to take as much interest in you as you do yourself.
@7 nice deflection, but ultimately a Fail.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 05:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I did not ask you to take interest in me, only in the subject. If you raise certain references, expect them to be discussed.
Thus you prove your own weakness. You're not worthy of my time. I shall remember this.
Thank you for clarifying your lack of of knowledge in these matters.
I am sure even Richard would find you tiresome.
However, as I said before, please do continue discussing the subject of the article.
“UK has no doubt about sovereignty over the Falklands and Islanders right to decide their future”
-ilsen
PS: You didn't post a link to your quote, as I requested. Richard G would be so disappointed at such lack of academic rigour. In fact, he might even think you could not support what you have to say...
Why is Marcos paying attention to the witterings of a Soviet spy?
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the UK little heed is given to Richard Gott - exceptions there are, of course, like the Independent. But then , who takes heed of anything that newspaper says. He is a “has been”!
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse 04 Marcos
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Troy,
Only if you sing Aqua Marina... ”
Marcos,
You love to be a smart ass, like Stevie.
A snide callous remark, and then you scuttle off - the exact style, and manner of speaking, in common with a few other Trolls.
Revealingly, you and Cmdr DoD, cannot resist referring to Aqua Marina, and we know DoD was a puppet.
Marcos,
master of the cheap shot, but that IS your function.
Not really from SA, right?
Another 'character' got on a roll and slipped up, in the past few days.
Again, somewhat revealing - can you guess who that was?? :-)
I think 'Marcos' is a Stevie sock-puppet. Seems very familiar.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0No matter, easily dispatched.
I see he didn't come back to me on any issues I raised, nor anything regarding Richard Gott.
I must have scared him off.
Meanwhile...
Since I am back in London, I really should get back in contact, and invite him (RG) for a glass or two of Malbec, and pick his brains on the current situation in Vnzla, after all he was quite the 'chavista', back 'in the day'.
I love a good debate....
:-)
Marcos thinks quotes will win the day.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0However as he doesn't live in a liberal democracy he is unaware that anyone can believe what they wish.
Those wishes do necessarily not become reality nor even reflect reality.
I look forward to Marcos' quote for the next several years and nothing actually changing while the Falkland Islanders enjoy their oil windfall.
Its a dubious claim at best.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact is uk took them back by force and have held them for nearly 200 years
Ignore the crap that the Argies come up with about 1833. Nothing happened. A minor police action to eject a few trespasser who had been warned in 1829 and 1832. 1765 is important. 1841 when we founded a colony there is important.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 01833 is just an Argentine myth.
#2
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK as a country has no doubt about the sovereignty,one man disagrees.
That means about 60,000,000 for....1 against.
From this you claim a moral victory. You have not made a convincing case !!
You quote one man's view of the situation because it suits your agenda. We can equally quote others with a different(correct) point of view.
The bottom line is that the Falklanders are waving two fingers at you and your kind.
This argentine regime has been asking, demanding, talks with the British government about some fixation the argies have over British territory.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The talks have now concluded.
Castro has her answer and can report this to Timerman, who in turn can inform the head ninny of the regime.
“”“Its a dubious claim at best.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fact is Spain took them back by force and have held them for nearly 300 years”“””
fixed that for the rest of south america for ya chap..
RIchard Gott: had to look him up he's *that famous* - a leftie nobody who was probably in the pay of the soviets.
As a basis for an Argentine claim its about as much use as a chocolate fire-guard.
2 Marcos Alejandro
Apr 10th, 2015 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gott resigned as literary editor of the Guardian in 1994 after it was alleged in The Spectator that he had been an “agent of influence” for the KGB, claims which he rejected, arguing that “Like many other journalists, diplomats and politicians, I lunched with Russians during the cold war”. He asserted that his resignation was “a debt of honour to my paper, not an admission of guilt”, because his failure to inform his editor of three trips abroad to meet with KGB officials at their expense had caused embarrassment to the paper during its investigation of Jonathan Aitken.[4]
The source of the allegation that he was an agent, KGB defector Oleg Gordievsky. In his resignation letter Gott admitted “I took red gold, even if it was only in the form of expenses for myself and my partner. That, in the circumstances, was culpable stupidity, though at the time it seemed more like an enjoyable joke”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gott
A Soviet defector named Oleg Gordievsky, the KGB’s resident chief in London during the mid-eighties, who, upon turning on his former nation, named their Western agents, among which were some well-known British politicians and journalists.
Gordievsky’s list of UK agents of influence, which he had handed over to Western spy chiefs upon defecting, included Guardian literary editor, Richard Gott. Upon news of Gott’s involvement with the KGB, he resigned, in a letter then Guardian editor, Peter Preston, accepted “with a heavy heart”.
According to Gordievsky, Gott was “an absolute classic case of an agent. He came to meetings at regular intervals. Sometimes it was once a month, sometimes every two months.” His Soviet handlers drew money to pay him.“The KGB was stingy, so the payments would not have been very much. The normal fee was between $450 and $600 every month or so.”
Gott was not the only Guardian journalist to be targeted and Gordievsky claimed that Gott’s newspaper was of special interest to Soviet intelligence.
“The K
carry on...
Apr 10th, 2015 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Marcos Alejandro ,Now be honest which EUROPEAN country are you squatting in these days?? must pain you that you have to live outside your own country because it's such a shit hole
Apr 10th, 2015 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”blablabla...Islanders right to decide their future”
Apr 10th, 2015 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0of course.
well said.
they can decide if they want to be sheep shearers, producers of guano or whatever they want.
who the fuck cares anyway?
what they cannot decide is the future of the land, of the territory.
those islets are territory in dispute.
GOT IT NOW?
@22 Idiot child - to have a dispute you need TWO antagonists. Only Argentina disputes Britain's claims; Britain has no problem, the territory is a British Overseas Self-governing Territory! We are comfortable in our position and we deny unequivocally the existence of a dispute!
Apr 10th, 2015 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the World has been seized, occupied, populated and defended at one time or another. To pretend Argentina's case is in anyway correct betrays either an entrenched bias or gross stupidity. In Mr Gotts case I fear its both.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@2. Prick. Do we have to go over all this again? Discovered by Britain in 1690. (168 years before argieland was recognised as a 'country'). Legally claimed in 1765. (93 years before argieland was recognised as a 'country'). Spanish trespassers spanked in 1771. (87 years before argieland was recognised a 'country'). Argie trespassers evicted in 1833. (25 years before argieland was recognised as a 'country').
Apr 10th, 2015 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Richard Gott spends his time eating the contents of arses. Argie and his own.
@14. What 'force'?
@17. But you're not telling the full story. Early in 2013, 'bat eared, goggle-eyed, double-bender' Timtosser was offered talks at the Foreign & Commonwealth Office, London. Timtosser found out that two British citizens that live in the British Falkland Islands would be present and were, in fact, flying 8,000 miles for the purpose. So Timtosser ran away. In the same month, Timtosser asserted that the British Falkland Islands would be under argie control by 2033. Curiously, around 4,000 people on the Falklands and 60 million people in the UK seem to disagree. Still, perhaps he's planning to lead an assault farce. Bolstered with his deep dedication to 'human rights'.
@22. I think you're missing the points. Islanders have decided to become oil and gas magnates. It's possible that, in a few years, with binoculars, you may be able to see the skyscrapers rising on the Islands. There's a building called Burj Khalifa that stands 829.8 metres high. Will you be able to see the Falklands Freedom Tower, 1,500 metres high, from the argie coast? Or will you need to stand on a soapbox? Have you noticed that the Islanders have a 'special friend'? Would you like a recapitulation of the UK's ability to kick argie arse? Tanker/transport aircraft with adequate range to reach OUR Islands without refueling. And refuel combat aircraft on the way. And transport 300 troops. And submarines that can attack the land. And the most successful tank in the world.
GOT IT NOW?
#22
Apr 10th, 2015 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0who the fuck cares anyway?
You obviously do so or you would not comment.
“what they cannot decide is the future of the land, of the territory.”
They already have and it's without any involvement of Argentina.
26 Clyde
Apr 10th, 2015 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Pillows” Cedron obviously does care.
He is spending his hard earned CabanaBoy Prosti-Pesos on an air ticket to the Falklands, or so he says!
Sure, Pillows, tell us when, so we can laugh when it turns out to be just more bs.
26
Apr 10th, 2015 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Clyde...seven military vessels in the Clyde yesterday....spotted five today, could see German maritime flags.....
What's happening...?
28 Voice
Apr 10th, 2015 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Clyde, Clyde, look at me, I live near you!
We're like brothers, right, huh, right... ?”
Stupid boy....Clyde usually knows what's happening, as he has an interest in these things....finger on the pulse for manoeuvres etc.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Plus I take pics and keep him updated to what's going on in the Clyde because he can't see from Ayr.....dumbo....what's wrong are you jealous...?
There are now 13 ships and the Trident sub has just come in....
Phone photo....and it's a bit overcast..but there it is...
https://farm9.staticflickr.com/8749/16913206850_88ed32a8f8_c.jpg
22 BottyBoypaulie
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“what they cannot decide is the future of the land, of the territory.
those islets are territory in dispute”.
Huh? Yes they can...............
HAVE YOU GOT IT NOW?
You keep that in mind while you remember the ARA General Belgrano ( AKA USS Phoenix ) The anniversary is coming up soon. Remember it well, BottyBoy.
30 voice
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clyde is obviously well informed, a free thinker and a gent - we've all seen his posts.
Quite certain Clyde is two steps ahead of you, and knows exactly what is going on.
However,
Clyde ain't gonna telly ou nothing that's classified information.
With your magnificent powers of Googling, I'm sure you have access to all the public information.
You have few friends on here and no credibility - it's intersting to see you try to cultivate a relationship besides Think.
Methinks you are jealous....;-)))
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you invent a few friends.....
....wait a minute...doh!
Derke....;o))))
33
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can I borrow a couple of yours,
Marcos, Stevie... doh!!
:-D
...sure help yourself....
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You badly need some....
I remember them all coming to your aid when Heisenberg was thrashing you.....NOT!
Poor Troy....nobody loves a sycophant....
UK has no doubt about sovereignty over the Falklands and Islanders right to decide their future
Apr 10th, 2015 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0repeat please==
UK has no doubt about sovereignty over Gibraltar and the Gibraltarian's right to decide their future,
no Disrespect minister, but this crap is wearing rather thin nowadays,
may one suggest you be just a little weensy bit more AGGRESIVE with barstool,
it might help ,
so they say.
Joint Warrior 2015/1 starts this weekend off the west coast of Scotland
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fifteen countries are taking part in the training that starts on Saturday.
The exercise, which runs until 24 April, will feature anti-submarine warfare and mock attacks on warships by small boats.
More than 50 ships and 70 aircraft, some being based at RAF Lossiemouth in Moray and Prestwick Airport in Ayrshire, along with 13,000 personnel will be involved.
Several of the surface ships and submarines have been arriving at Faslane on the Clyde. The exercise terminates on 24 April.
I will wander across to Prestwick next week to see what is flying from there.
Quote from P'wick airport management.:-
“We look forward to hosting numerous aircraft from the RAF and the Royal Navy as well as those from countries including France, Belgium and Holland. Aircraft types should include various fast jets, helicopters and transport aircraft such as Hawks, Falcon 20s, A340s and C130s.”
Tonight half the RCAF seem to be there along with a Xingu and assorted
C-130s
As to Voice, it's fair to say we have divergent opinions on the Falklands and some other matters. However, if he, or anyone else here asks in a polite manner, I will reply in kind.
35 voice
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“..nobody loves a sycophant....”
Right, ask Clyde.
I'll be sure to send Derke your way, if you like?
Starbucks ok? Or would you prefer a pint?
Dozens of warships join British war games off Scotland
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fourteen countries begin exercises off Scotland designed to reassure Putin's Nato neighbours, as Nordic countries announce new defence alliance against Russia
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11528622/Dozens-of-warships-join-British-war-games-off-Scotland.html
Should be interesting.
I hope the ambassador is watching BBC2 right now. The Island Parish series is covering the FIs and it looks lovely.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There you go folks....
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...keeping you updated with pics as it happens....
What a considerate fellow... taking the time with a selection of pics for those he thinks are interested...;-)
I think CFK should be invited to Portsmouth next year,
Apr 10th, 2015 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0to see the mighty carrier arrive, and see all the other mighty ships ,
it should wake her up before she gets arrested for rights abuses against the islanders,
just saying like.
@7 Marcos
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Don't expect others to take as much interest in you as you do yourself.”
Ilsen's posts are more interesting than yours so there is interest in them. Therefore Ilsen does not need to have self interest.
@22
“what they cannot decide is the future of the land, of the territory.”
They have, and are continuing to decide the future of their land. The referendum they held in 2013 has been accepted by the UK who are continuing to ensure that the Islanders do decide the future of their territory.
If the Islander's wishes cannot be carried out, why haven't Argentina taken over?
“those islets are territory in dispute.”
That is not stopping the Falklanders from doing what they wish with the Islands though is it?
When are these oil executives going to be arrested then? If they were, that might make Argentina's threats seem realistic.
Wake us all up if Argentina manages to arrest someone from the Falklands oil industry.........zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
The only people who will decide the future of the terrority will be the islanders.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sorry I cant be totally certain but choosing to become argentinan subjects is highly unlikely at the present or for the future.
Until, they change their minds or argentina grows up HM forces will defend the right for the islanders to do what they choose to do.
22Paulie- So who is disputing the Territory known as the falklands?
Apr 10th, 2015 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The people who live here and who have done for many generations and several of whom are descended from those who first came here in the late 1820s from South America HAVE decided our future by the normal traditional democratic manner - the ballot box.
Some little tinpot outside country wishes to make a fuss about it with a fantasy claim- tough tit - we could not care less about what you think - it is irrelevant.
arg has no doubt about sovereignity over Malvinas and its legitime claim.
Apr 10th, 2015 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read that the congress condemns increasing militarisation of Malvinas and spying.
The Uk ambassador was invited ot give explanations...what did he say??'
So you Canadian ANGLOS...
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you going to hand over Justin Bieber to face to his crimes, or will you as typical Anglos “do as we say not as we do”??
Come on Canarians, all your pontificating about the “rule of law”, time to prove it.
@43
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you. One does try to contribute.
@ all
Troy Tempest is a thoroughly decent chap and has my respect.
Anyone who is doesn't like my respect for him can fuck off to the far side of fuck, and then fuck off some more.
Peace!
-ilsen
Xx
Come on Cannarians and NorthAmoans... This should be easy. There's an arrest warrant on Justin Bieber for calling for a hit-job. He should be one of the easiest justice-dodgers to find. I mean, his life is about being on camera, in the news, in public, on stage. Should should be able to find them within the next 2 hours.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0So ... will the Anglos shock me and live by their standards they preach on everyone else ? Or will once and for all prove what I have always said: “typical anglos”!
48 ilsen
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Coming from you, that's quite an endorsement.
Certainly, you have told them in terms, they in particular, can understand.
Anglos: obey judge's orders, stop being scofflaws!
Apr 11th, 2015 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malen- does not matter what doubts you do or do not have - You will never have the Islands - they belong to the Islanders.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0I imagine the Br Ambassador said:
Since when is building a new School “militarization”?
Since when is replacing old buildings with new ones “militarization”
Since when is replacing old pipes and plumbing with new “militarization”?
Since when is replacing an old out of date oldfashioned missile system with a current new one?
Since when is replacing 2 helicopters you took away several years ago - with a replacement 2 of the same model helicopters “militarization”?
and:
Well does Argentina not spy a bit on South American countries. We assume you spy on us where you can - bloody stupid if you don,t
#23: QUOTE: “to have a dispute you need TWO antagonists. Only Argentina disputes Britain's claims; Britain has no problem, the territory is a British Overseas Self-governing Territory! We are comfortable in our position and we deny unequivocally the existence of a dispute!”
Apr 11th, 2015 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Far from the truth. Do you really think that bullshit you just wrote?. A dispute just need one of the parties that says that something you consider yours to be his. The important thing to a dispute being recognized is that somebody else recognize it. The UN recognize the sovereignty dispute. May be your ego does not let you underestand there is more nations than the UK.
If i take my neighbour's car, saying its mine. It will still be my neighbours car, even if i continually say that i have no doubts about my ownership of that car.
The same with Malvinas. You british deny the very existance of the dispute, thats why your government claims they have no doubt about the sovereignty of the islands. If the british recognize that dispute they are forced to negotiate a way, to find a solution to the dispute.
It is a very easy for a colonial power to take a land, and then say hey!!! i have no doubt that that land is mine. The correct way is to open your eyes and see that the UNITED NATION Recognize there is a sovereignty dispute about a territory that somebody else is claiming as its own and work towards a peacefull solution to the problem.
Keep your arrogance out british.
Liberato
Apr 11th, 2015 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have a car for over 200 years, after 150 years, my neighbour says he feels the car should be his because he wanted it 150 years ago.
He can dispute it all he likes, but until he proves it is legally his, in a Court of Law, I retain the car.
Don't expect any islands until the ICJ says you may have them. End of.
Liberato due to his Argentinean education keeps repeating the same fallacy.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 04:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Repeating it won't make it true or a meme, mate. It will only make you look stupid.
As I have said more than once. Recognising a sovereignty dispute does not equate to recognising sovereignty.
THE UN DOES NOT RECOGNISE ARGENTINEAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER THE FALKLAND ISLANDS.
It recognises a DISPUTE.
Just as the UK recognises a dispute. I notice that you don't make the same leap of logic there saying the UK recognises Argentinean sovereignty over the Islands.
Liberato you have FAILED to produce the requested documentation disproving my claim and supporting yours.
If you want international precedent, then check out who the UN recognises as being the administering state for Western Sahara. It ain't Morocco. IT'S SPAIN!
The UN has NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER said Argentina has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Not once in all its history.
Every time you write this dumb lie caused by your grossly inadequate Argentinean education, I will rebut with the same point.
As I am clearly more articulate (and edicated) than you, it will mean that my version of reality will win out and you will only perpetuate what I want people to know.
Nicely said!
Apr 11th, 2015 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK does officially recognise there is a dispute anyway.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's rather obvious that there is or at least has been a dispute - 1000 people got killed over it in 1982.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0But this being said, one has to wonder if “dispute” is actually ethe right word for the current phenomenon. Generally, a dispute exists to be resolved. Yet Argetina's only attempt to actually resolve the “dispute” was its massive sneak attack on a harmless and largely undefended community in 1982. Since then, it has declined to pursue any of the avenues that might actually lead to a resolution of the so-called “dispute”. It won't take it's claim to the ICJ, for all the obvious reasons, and it can't talk to the islanders, because the whole basis of its claim would collapse if it did. It persists instead in the curious fantasy that the victor can be persuaded to capitulate 30 years after the war by ineffectual posturing on the international stage. “Dispute” isn't the right word for this, it's just theatre, and should be treated accordingly.
@58 HansNiesund
Apr 11th, 2015 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Since then, it has declined to pursue any of the avenues that might actually lead to a resolution of the so-called “dispute”. It won't take it's claim to the ICJ, for all the obvious reasons, and it can't talk to the islanders, because the whole basis of its claim would collapse if it did. It persists instead in the curious fantasy that the victor can be persuaded to capitulate 30 years after the war by ineffectual posturing on the international stage. “Dispute” isn't the right word for this, it's just theatre, and should be treated accordingly.”
Excellent, logical post.
But Argentine logic defies me-why keep attempting the impossible/unlikely, when all they have to do is take the route one approach and talk to the Islanders?
Even if they don't get the Islander's total agreement to their views, they could be getting back at them by trading and getting £s currency out of them.
The Argentines aren't going to get Falkland Islands oil by wailing with bullshit versions of law and history. By selling the Islands labour, services and supplies, the oil money could be flowing their way instead of to someone else-therefore technically they would be benefitting from that oil, without having the trouble of drilling for it.
in that way, they may not be getting all of the money, but some, instead of which now they have jack squit , except for support from many tin pot countries, but not a single drop of oil from the Falklands.
Perhaps Argentina finds the support from these countries preferable to the actual oil/Falklands themselves?
They are too stupid even to recognise they are getting nowhere fast.
It seems the Argentines have never heard the adage,there's easier ways of killing a rat than by sucking its brains out through it's arse.
Yet the Argentines still insist on attempting to suck the brains out through arse to achieve their aims.
Errrrr?
Arrest the fugitive Anglo scofflaw Justin Bieber.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anglos obey the courts and the rule of law!
Pete,
Apr 11th, 2015 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentines are hoping for a miracle.
Whether by the Chinese fleet or by the US suddenly having an Argentine interest or by just wearing us down with their constant whinging & whining, l really couldn't say.
Of course by now, they believe their own lies.
The teachers who teach these lies to their schoolchildren were themselves taught lies about the Falklands when they were children at school.
And so it goes on.
l can't see them ever changing as the lies are so ingrained in their psyche.
We will never have peace until Argentina is broken up into smaller more manageable countries.
Arrest the fugitive Anglo scofflaw Justin Bieber.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anglos obey the courts and the rule of law!
62
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you are wasting your time with this....
Apart from a bunch of teenagers, everyone on here would love to see Justin Bieber arrested and face charges....
Better still slung into an Argentine jail and never seeing the light of day again...
As soon as they issue an arrest warrant that is valid OUTSIDE Argentina.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nostrils, your Argentinean eduction is showing.
Unfortunately Argentine arrest warrants are not recognised anywhere in the civilised world.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@63
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With a bit of luck, they might even sentence him to time in Tobi's basement.
@63
Apr 11th, 2015 - 12:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could probably work out a deal whereby Argentina gets Justin Bieber from wherever he is just as soon as Sweden gets Julian Assange from Ecuador
He doesn't seem to have a bit of a hard on for Justin.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pity he doesn't get so riled up when his politicians rob him.
#54 i congratulate you for your 200 years old car, but in that case, you did not recognize a jurisdiction of a court of law to cases of 150 years. And your neighbour sugested you to take the case to arbitration and you refused. So its not that the law is with you in the case of the car. becouse you dont recognize any law regarding that car.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#55: I think you are confused here. Ive never said the UN recognize Argentine sovereignty rights over the islands. But certainly they dont recognize the situation described by britain.
Practically, all resolutions regarding the islands recognize the colonial situation, the sovereignty dispute, recognize the uk as the administering power of that colony among other colonies, and above all, they dont recognize a self-determined and self-government in the islands.
The UN GA nor the DC cant decide over a sovereignty dispute, but they can examine the colonial situation, among many interesting things. The islands remain listed as a territory to decolonize. A situation that the uk is not very confortable with.
Oh and another thing, the uk recognize no dispute over the territory. claiming they have no doubt of british sovereignty rights over the islands. Ignoring completely what the UN is saying.
#58, i think the word theatre is what the uk is doing. Dont forget the british oil companies that explore for oil in the islands, the continual miliratization, the accusation to Argentina of a live threat? while actually we have no money to even flight one plane, and to shoot one bullet. Without mention that the Eurofighter flew over continental Argentina to Chile without our interception.
So i think your polititians should be awarded some kind of price for its theatre dont you think?.
69 Liberato
Apr 11th, 2015 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With the completion of the Referendum the UK has for filled it's legal obligation under the Charter, as the Islands are now “decolonized”. “UN Charter; DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES; Article 73; Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for ..peoples have not yet attained ..of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ..b. to develop self-government, ...”
“Self-determination of people: a legal reappraisal by Antonio Cassese
The content of self-determination as laid down in the Covenants Article 1 of both the UN Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provides as follows: All peoples have the right of self-determination. ... All peoples may, ... freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources ...
”The States Parties to the present Covenant, including those having responsibility for the administration of Non-Self-Govcrning and Trust Territories, shall promote ...the right of self-determination, and shall respect that right, in conformity with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations.
SELF-DETERMINATION AS A CONTINUING RIGHT'. EXPRESSION OF THE POPULAR WILL; 53 Article 1(3) grants pcoples of dependent territories (non-self-governing and trust territories) the right freely to decide their international status, in other words, whether to form a State or to associate with an existing sovereign“. So any resolution on sovereignty is ultra vires as per UN Charter Article 103 ”In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
@63
Apr 11th, 2015 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh yes, that young mans ego needs a sharp dose of reality. I for one think that Argentina could probably administer it better than any one, except for perhaps, Nth Korea.
69 Liberato
Apr 11th, 2015 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's up to the neighbour to take it to a Court of Law - get back to me when he's done.
I'm waiting.
@46. I think he told you to feck off. I've got a date for argieland being argieland. 1858! Islands discovered by Britain - 168 years before. British formal establishment - 93 years before. Spanish failed attempt - 87 years before. Argie attempted piracy - 38 years before. 2nd argie attempt at piracy - 30 years before. Who gives a shit about some 3rd world 'congress'?
Apr 11th, 2015 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@47, 49, 51. Sorry. argie mafia mob law doesn't apply to proper people. That includes ALL 'Anglos'. Who are human. Unlike the shite that infests SoAm. Isn't it time to obliterate 'alien' infestation?
@53. Pillock! What do you think the UN is? Some sort of world government? The UK is sovereign. WE will do what is right.
@69. NO UNGA resolution is binding. So stuff your 'resolutions'.
And your point about British oil companies exploring for oil in British Islands is....? Would you like to tell us where we can locate combat aircraft in the British Isles? We'll locate British armed forces wherever we like. I have this idea where Britain bases adapted missiles in the Falkland Islands. We'll have land-adapted Harpoons, Tomahawks, Brimstones, Meteors, Starstreaks and Storm Shadows.
Don't think any of your whingeing will stop Britain. We'd sink the entire argie navy, if you had one. We'd shoot down the entire argie air force. If you had one. How good of you to combine your military airfields with civilian airports. So we'll just obliterate the lot. Don't like your civilians being exterminated? Not our problem.
We can teach you how to learn to die. Think more than 1% of Brits 'care' about you?
Theatre? Try 33 years of hatred for an unjustified aggression, mistreatment of British troops, occupation, war crimes. mistreatment of Falklands civilians, minefields. Is that 'theatre'? Argies say 'It wasn't us'. Yes it was. Argieland WAS and argies ARE guilty. I have no problem with retribution. Watch the skies!
UK has no doubt about sovereignty over the Falklands
Apr 11th, 2015 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0nothing mentions Justin,?
#73 Argieland (as you with all your heart called us) was officially independent in 1816. And britain recognized our independence oficcially in 1825 without making a claim to the islands that were free of british colonial precense for more than 50 years.
Apr 11th, 2015 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The islands were not discovered by britain. And nobody in the world except britain give credit to that theory.
British formal establishment?????. So you mean the british made a formal establishment in a territory where already existed a formal establishment?.
You have no shame. The british made a settlement hidden from another power who already claimed them and settled them. And claimed a land that was already claimed by another power. And later claimed discovery to a land that was already discovered, even by third parties.
The non binding resolutions does not means they dont exist. it means the uk is not forced to comply. But never the less, those resolutions exist to be complied with. Those resolutions invites the two nations to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute. The uk can make deaf ears, but it can not pretend as if the sovereignty does not exist.
May be, i have no doubt the uk could sink the entire argentine navy and air force if they like. But then why are your polititians crying that we are pretending to atack the islands and aprove more weapons to be delivered down here?.
Teach me how to die? how old are you?. Do you think im afraid of you or something?. Should i be afraid of your keyboard fighting?, Grow up kid, and learn some history before talking. I guess for your virtual agressiveness that you are not over 15 yo, so all i can recommend is to learn history with any non british history book. It will open your eyes to other realities rather than the muslims are the enemy, the argentines hate us, iraq has weapons of mass destruction, etc.
75 Liberato
Apr 11th, 2015 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#73 Argieland (as you with all your heart called us) was officially independent in 1816. And Britain recognized our independence officially in 1825 without making a claim to the islands that were free of British colonial presence for more than 50 years.
Yeah, yeah, yeah...... ok, now lets have a serious post from someone who has not been completely brainwashed by their own governments propaganda.
Saludos hermanos “latinoamericanos” desde Neuquen !
Apr 11th, 2015 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 077 Ipa
Apr 11th, 2015 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Saludos hermanos “latinoamericanos” desde Neuquen !”
In English please. Your comments /postings need to be in English. Otherwise, you are just shouting in the dark.
@69
Apr 11th, 2015 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oil exploration off the Falklands by the Evil Pirate United Kingdom might be regarded as theatre if the EPUK was only pretending to explore for oil without having any intention of ever finding any, or doing anything with it if they ever did. I don't believe that's the case, and not apparently, does the Poor, Poor Republic of Arjunteena, or they wouldn't be squealing about it the way they are now.
Likewise, EPUK militarization might also be regarded as theatre if the EPUK was pretending to have put in place a massive military apparatus when the truth of it was just two helicopters, a new schoolroom, and the replacement if an obsolete air defence system. But in fact it's the PPRA who has been alleging massive militarization, not the EPUK.
The military weakness of the PPRA is probably why EPUK militarization is really pretty crap and feeble for any self-respecting militarizing Evil Pirate United Kingdom. Its quite hard to see how the upgrade of a defensive system constitutes any kind of threat against the PPRA, unless of course the PPRA had some shenanigans in mind and these have now been thwarted by the EPUK.
It's interesting to speculate, however, if the EPUK's initiative isn't in some way related to the massive espionage campaign allegedly conducted by the EPUK against the PPRA. Maybe the EPUK found something out it wasn't supposed to? It needn't even be any kind of conventional military operation. Let's not forget, for example, how recently the President of the PPRA herself has been celebrating terrorist actions by non-state actors, to wit the Condor hijacking by patriotic Montoneros. At the same time, there are plenty freelance and state sponsored loonies going about in the PPRA (see Toni Lopez) for example, not to mention the belligerent, racist and bonkers irrational rhetoric coming out of the PPRA from everybody from the President downwards. Given the long history of PPRA criminality in that neighbourhood, one has to take precautions.
@75 Liberato
Apr 12th, 2015 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Those resolutions invites the two nations to negotiate a solution to the sovereignty dispute. The uk can make deaf ears, but it can not pretend as if the sovereignty does not exist.”
The UK and Falkland Islanders already HAVE sovereignty- you WANT to have sovereignty through negotiation, as the UN and ICJ will not bestow it upon you.
Wishful thinking on your part.
#76: hahaha so you think that my own nation's year of independence is a propaganda?. The 1825 agreement of transport, commerce and navigation signed between the uk and Argentina is also a propaganda?. Go back to school dummy. At least read a british history book if you dont trust me that will tell you when did Argentina declared independence?.
Apr 12th, 2015 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0#79: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
Headline: “Britain sends an extra £180million to defend the Falklands amid fears Putin is plotting to help arm Argentina
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
Headline: ”Britain to send more troops to the Falklands to counter 'heightened' invasion threat from Argentina“
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
Headline: ”Britain to bolster Falklands defences due to 'increased threat'“
Quote1: ”Defence secretary expected to announce reinforcements of troops and equipment after Argentina said to be buying long-range bombers from Russia“
Quote2: ”The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, is expected to announce reinforcements of troops and equipment in parliament later on Tuesday after a defence ministry review suggested an attack on the south Atlantic archipelago was more likely”
So after your theatrical drama, let me remind you that while our polititians, as our constitution claims that we will seek the recovery of the islands by peacefull means and international law, your polititians claims we are about to invade.
Let me remind you that while Argentina and the UN ask for negotiations and dialogue, the british says they have no doubt about their rights of sovereignty. Let me remind you that while we have no money even to put a plane in the air, your newspaper and defense secretary are claiming we are rearming to the bones to atack the islands. Its crazy isnt it?
Wow.
Apr 12th, 2015 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0All that history.
And all those resolutions.
And all that propaganda.
And all the money spent by Argentina.
And in 2015 the islands are still British.
Yes absolutely crazy.
ummm...
Apr 12th, 2015 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are a British Overseas Terroritry.
Fact.
Argentina is a mild irritant, and a complete joke.
Fact.
next!
@81 Liberato
Apr 12th, 2015 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pretty damning, those quotes from the Guardian and Telegraph
“Quote1: ”Defence secretary IS EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE reinforcements of troops and equipment after Argentina said to be buying long-range bombers from Russia“
Quote2: ”The defence secretary, Michael Fallon, IS EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE reinforcements of troops and equipment in parliament later on Tuesday after a defence ministry review suggested an attack on the south Atlantic archipelago was more likely” ”
LOL !!
Key words, “ ...EXPECTED TO ANNOUNCE...” - in other words, IT DIDNT HAPPEN.
·84: The british defence secretary had already spoken.It is not only “expected to announce”. Obviously you did not read a word of those articles i posted. Perhaps you would prefer me to quote some more nazionalistic newspaper like the sun or the mirror dont you?.
Apr 12th, 2015 - 03:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same articles, different quotes:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
Quote: “Mr Fallon told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: ‘The threat remains. It is a very live threat. We have to respond to it.
‘We do need to modernise our defences to ensure that we have sufficient troops there and that the islanders have the right to remain British and the right to proper protection by our forces. ‘It is our general view that the threat has not reduced.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
quote1: “Michale Fallon said: ”The threat remains. It is a very live threat. We have to respond to it.“”
Quote2:“We do need to modernise our defences to ensure that we have sufficient troops there and that the islands are properly defended in terms of air defence and maritime defence”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
quote:“Speaking to BBC Breakfast, Fallon said: “We have been reviewing our defence arrangements of the Falklands where there is obviously a continuing threat even 30 years after the Falklands war. I’m going to be announcing in parliament how we are going to beef up the defence of Falkland Islands – obviously I can’t go into details before I tell parliament.””
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3008449/Build-defences-combat-Putin-threat-say-MPs.html
haha this last one is hilarious. Kirchner threaten to fight for sovereignty?. Isnt it a little yellow?. The important is that you get the picture right?.
Say what you like, Lib.
Apr 12th, 2015 - 05:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks to you guys, any British government that left the islands exposed so that any demented fascists could just walk in, would be straight out the door.
It would be totally irresponsible and unforgivable, to allow that to happen.
Just the fact that Argentina wants the military removed, is good reason to stop
us from doing it.
Your Minister, Putrid Jelly, already let slip publicly, that if there were no troops in the FI, Argentina would waste no time taking them.
That's enough of a threat.
Go away, Liberato.
Apr 12th, 2015 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are becoming tiresome.
You have no case & you know it.
The Falklands have NEVER belonged to Argentina &,
You know that.
The Falklands will NEVER belong to Argentina & guess what?
You know that too.
Scram.
#85
Apr 12th, 2015 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are playing the long game here. Who knows what your next bunch of politicians will decide. We were caught out once and paid a heavy price.
Any updating of obsolescent equipment is for defensive purposes and has little or no offensive capabilities, so why are you getting your knickers in a twist ?
Is it because you would find it impossible to invade again ?
Argentina does not want talks about sovereignty. It wants the islands and the sub antarctic islands handed over to them and will accept nothing less.
Why should we talk, there is nothing to discuss.
@85
Apr 12th, 2015 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're not paying attention. The massive military buildup turned out to be 2 helicopters, school buildings, and the replacement of an air defence system. It's mostly chickenfeed, but If Argentina wasn't considered a live threat, none of it would be necessary.
As regards dialogue, the Thatcher government was in dialogue with the junta right up until a few weeks before the invasion. The junta, on the other hand, massively supported by the population, preferred to start a war instead because it found to its consternation that “dialogue” and “negotiation” don't mean “give Argentina whatever it wants”. They still don't.
Even after the war, and despite Argetina's track record of dishonesty and untrustworthiness, the UK was prepared to enter into a whole series of agreements and negotiations in order to normalise relations. But then of course Nestor Kirchner was next to be shocked to discover that “dialogue” and “negotiation” actually mean “dialogue” and “negotiation”.
Even after this, the UK has not closed the door on dialogue and negotiation. Indeed in March 2013 Foreign Secretary William Hague even invited Timerman to discussions in London. Timerman declined of course, because as we all know, Argentina doesn't want dialogue and negotiation at all, what it wants is an Argentine monologue from which the people whose home it wishes to seize are excluded, and from which only one outcome is possible. And the only possible response to this is “Go Fuck Yourselves”. Surely you can't be surprised?
85 Liberato
Apr 12th, 2015 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You were not born British,
and that is where the problems starts and ends,
being brainwashed, honesty , loyal truthful , trustworthy , and a respected member of society is Totally alien to you.
still,
one day...
#89: Im paying attention. So whats that's suppouse to mean?. You do not believe we are planning to invade as your newspapers claim? You do not believe we are rearming to atack the islands? You do not believe we are a live threat like your defense secretary said?. What?
Apr 12th, 2015 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are very ignorant of the situation. Thatcher was as fascist, corrupt and unpopular leader as our dictatorship was. The difference is that she was put in charge by democratic means, while our dictatorship was imposed against the will of the population. That regime could never been imposed in the first place without western support and local civil elite support (press among others).
The idea of the regime to recover the islands were basically the contrary to what you suggest: they did not count any support from the population. The economy was a mess and there were mayor strikes. Do you have any idea the guts you had to have to make mayor strikes against a brutal regime?. But you are right about something, Thatcher was open to dialogue with that dictature, and would have transferred soveregnty of the colony in a bit if it werent for the lobby of the feudal FIC that had influenced parlament in London.
After the war, Argentina and britain agreed to put the claim in stand by, with an argentine politics of seduction, giving the islands the security they needed to grant fishing liceses, to mark areas for exploration of oil and to travel through argentine continental air space. The only one to benefit those agreements were the uk, That mantained the status quo on the sovereignty dispute. Exploted the area unilaterally without any military threat and had no more GA resolutions treating them like pirates.
Timmerman was in London to dialogue and negotiation as the UN asked for, negotiations between the uk and Argentina. But the british think there is a third party in this dispute becouse they consider the islands selfdetermined and selfgoverned, something at the eyes of the UN as unreal. UK and Arg.
#91
Apr 12th, 2015 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what was the problem in hearing what the Islanders had to say. Being a brilliant diplomat he surely could have persuaded the Islanders with his argument. Britain would not stand in the way of the Islanders wishes.
Its all the fault of the British.
Apr 12th, 2015 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@91 Liberato,
Apr 12th, 2015 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lts far, far too late for any of that my dear Lib.
You've shot your bolt & it missed.
You have alienated us that much with your petty harassments, lies to the UN & insults that l cannot see us EVER wanting anything to do with you, ever again.
You go your way & we'll go ours.
btw- We DO see you as a threat,
Puricelli admitted that if it wasn't for the British Garrison that you would attack & invade us again.
We don't trust you.
Answer enough, Lib, old chap?
91
Apr 12th, 2015 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The only one to benefit those agreements were the uk”.
That might have had something to do with the fact that Argentina had been defeated following the surrender of their armed forces on the Falkland Islands.
Britain also got to keep alot of Argentine Military equipment abandoned by the Argentine troops when they ran away. Some of this equipment was brought back to Blighty and put on display at the War museum to remind future generations of Britain's victory in the South Atlantic in 1982.
@91
Apr 12th, 2015 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I already said what I think about the Argentine threat, which is that history has taught us all we need to know.
As for he rest, don't give us that crap about he junta being nsupported by he population at large. The 1982 invasion was wildly popular and there is any amount of photographic and documentary of that. Galtieri, in fact, coud not have withdrawn his troops even under the cover of a binding UN resolution without being trim to pieces by he howling mob outside the Casa Rosada.
In any event, it is time to stop calling this a dispute, it's another phenomenon entirely. As we've seen, you've failed to resolve it militarily. You can't go to he ICJ because you know you would lose, and all your lies would be exposed. You can't talk to the islanders, because that would recognize their legitimacy, and you have painted yourselves into a corner with all your squatter/pirate hate mongering. Now 're trying trying a political strategy that can't possibly succeed. The UN as a whole does not support you, and even if it did the best you could get would be another GA resolution like the one you already broke by starting a war. There is no political pressure on the UK worth mentioning, and certainly nothing that calls into question UK interests in LatAm and the rest of the world.
So what you have is not a dispute, but a perpetual, unresolvable grievance. This is good news for the Peronists and others in need of a distraction from their monumental incompetence, as well as for all those making a living from the public purse in the Malvinas business. It requires some minor inconvenience and expense for the islanders and the UK, but that's no big deal. The only ones suffering are the Malvinista true believers who are eating their livers and paying for it all. But as we've also seen, some of them are so eager for vIctimhood they'd find a way anyway.
#92: There is no problem at talking to islanders. In Fact our ex Chacellor Di Tella went to the islands and talked to them personally remember?. But you have to make a difference. One thing is to talk to them as a community that inhabit the islands, and another thing is to talk to a “self governed and self determined people” as the uk want us to believe while they are not even recognized as such by the UN. Ive seen islanders going through South America saying that Argentina refuse to talk to them, but when jornalists asked them if they are willing to talk about sovereignty they categorically said NO, that they can talk about practical matters of mutual interests?. So? even in a seduction policy there is no way to resolve this dispute unless we recognize, a very recognized colony, as a selfdetermined people, giving the legitimacy the uk need to exploit the Malvinas and the rest of the south atlantic area, legitimating also a british claim to Antartica. Let me remind you there are 10 territories under the decolonization process in the hands of the british where only two of them has a sovereignty dispute.
Apr 13th, 2015 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The umbrella formula, with the seduction policy, was made to interact with islanders to find a solution to the dispute. It did not worked out becouse Islanders refused to talk about sovereignty but about practical matters. But now they want us to talk to them?.
#96: quote:“ I already said what I think about the Argentine threat, which is that history has taught us all we need to know.”
Oh yeah? and what history teached you about the Chagossians?, or the inhabitants of Banabans island? or about invading Iraq without a minimum valid reason?. Did history found weapons of mass destruction on Iraq? Did history found the conexion between al qaeda and Hussein?.
History is what your governments put you in your head so you go as a stupid to invade, conquer, or exploit another nation thinking that you are liberating Malvinas from a dictatorship, or liberating Iraq, etc.
Why would any Falkland Islander talk about their sovereignty with Argentina?
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0It has nothing to do with them. Would Argentina talk about their sovereignty if Bolivia suddenly made up a claim to their entire country?
Argentinean education at its finest. Keep it up Liberato, you make you country look dumber by the day.
#97
Apr 13th, 2015 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0History is what your governments put you in your head so you go as a stupid to invade, conquer, or exploit another nation thinking that you are liberating Malvinas from a dictatorship,
You have summed up the Argentine position perfectly.
Liberato,
Apr 13th, 2015 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0We will talk about anything that you like, EXCEPT Sovereignty or Oil.
Sovereignty IS NOT Negotiable.
Neither is Oil.
You had your chance to get a share of OUR Oil & you blew it.
So what would you like to talk about today?
The weather?
Trade?
Fisheries?
lnvestments?
Wildlife?
The melting icecap?
Tourism?
Anytime you like, if we're not too busy.
Enjoy.
#98: The argentine claim is not a suddenly made up a claim as you suggest. It is a claim that persisted since we got independence, where a foreign power in 1833 invaded them by force.
Apr 13th, 2015 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why would any Falkland Islander talk about their sovereignty with Argentina?. They cant becouse they do not form a different people than those of the uk, but as they claim to be recognized by Argentina, they should be very interested to talk about sovereignty becouse there is a sovereignty dispute that have existed since they invaded in 1833.
#99:1 millon of iraqi deads for the illegal invation do not thinks so. The expelled chagossians either, The banabans inhabitants who had their islands fully contaminated either.
#100: Isolde, the argentine protest of british colonization started in 1833, why would we care if there is oil or not. Certainly if there is oil, or even a little fish you took from our waters, belongs to Argentina and is exploited by a world known colonial power.
Isolde, First the islanders do not form a different entity than those in the uk, ergo they cant talk shit about sovereignty with a sovereign nation. Secondly, The uk can talk or not about sovereignty, but if they respect the UN other than the SC, they should abide by the resolutions of any body of the UN. The UN have many many times invited the two governments (uk and Argentina) to negotiate sovereignty, finding a way to end this old sovereignty dispute. They do not want to resolve the dispute? fine, we will continue to claim it and the islands will continue to remain a british colony in the decolonization process.
#101
Apr 13th, 2015 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am talking about the Falklands and your government feeding your people lies about sovereignty.
@101 Liberato,
Apr 13th, 2015 - 12:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your attitude, which is prevalent in Argentina, is the problem.
Argentina did not own these lslands in 1833 & does not own them now.
The waters, the fish & the oil are also not yours.
The UN has never said that we should “negotiate” our Sovereignty.
The UN says that we should seek a peaceful solution to your(not our)dispute.
Stop lying, Liberato.
You want us to abide by the decisions of the UN on Resolutions, which are NON-BINDING, yet Argentina REFUSED to obey a BINDING order from the UNSC #502.
This is why we strongly disagree with you & will resist you in your attempts to steal OUR lslands.
As we have nothing in common & because of your lies & attitude, there is nothing more to say.
Good day to you.
@97
Apr 13th, 2015 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for proving my point. Argentina has engineered a “dispute” for which there exists no possible soultion that can satisfy Argentina. This being so, the “dispute” should no longer be considered a “dispute” but a purely Argentine psycho-political phenomenon for which no appropriate term exists in the English language.
Do you seriously believe that anybody would sit down to discuss sovereignity with you as if nothing had happened, a mere couple of years after 1000 lives had been lost rebuffing your attempt to seize sovereignity by force? Do you think that Argentine actions have no consequence in the real world? What you were offered by the UK post war was the chance to rebuild over the long term the relationships the junta had shattered, and you spurned that chance like a thwarted toddler throwing a tantrum at the sweet counter. Now by your own admission you refuse to talk to the islanders for fear talks would confer legitimacy upon them, and then you complain the UK refuses dialogue with you. It is hard to think of any other example in the world of such self-absorbed stupidity, so hard in fact, that one is led to wonder whether the whole thing isn't entirely deliberate.
Your other points aren't much easier to understand. Why is it, for example, that the Fallkand Islanders are apparently supposed to make amends to Argentina for the invasion of Iraq? What has that got to do with the Falkland islanders? Why is Argentina the beneficiary? If UK behaviour towards the Chagossans was so reprehensible, whthrough it not be reprehensible to do the same thing to the Falklanders? Is two injustices somehow better than one injustice? Or would the expulsion of the Falklanders make it OK to have expelled the Chagossians? please explain.
101 Liberato
Apr 13th, 2015 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re: “where a foreign power in 1833 invaded them by force.
”Both Argentine 2007 pamphlets repeat the standard Argentine view of the legal position in the Falklands dispute (English p. 5, Spanish p. 11):
the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833...“ p.39 Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Thus claiming an act of 'conquest by the UK; ”..It is therefore not surprising that the UN General Assembly declared in 1970 that the modem prohibition against the acquisition of territory by conquest should not be construed as affecting titles to territory created 'prior to the Charter regime and valid under international law'..” Akehursts Modern Introduction to International Law By Peter Malanczuk
105
Apr 13th, 2015 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Show me just one link where the British Govt are claiming Sovereignty of the Falklands by Conquest...just one...
I heard there were rumours that the US were claiming Sovereignty of the Moon by Conquest of the Clangers as well...it's all hush hush though...
They also claimed Silence as Consent too...well because the Clangers didn't say anything....that was probably because the Clangers were on another Moon or they don't exist one of the two...
I expect the British Conquest claim is also hush hush too....
106 Voice
Apr 13th, 2015 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your slipping with your various aliases, you've discarded your Vestige disguise and reincarnated yourself as Voice, how do you keep up with yourself. The UK has never made a claim of right by conquest, as they have sufficient facets of international law to bury Argentina. What your missing, in your haste to engage in sophism, is it's a culpable admission by Argentina, that she has no legal claim. To wit: 'Thus, in the Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: “Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose that the ceding and the cessionary Power or at least one of them, have the faculty of effectively disposing of the ceded territory.”10 That the tribunal's decision in this arbitration should have admitted conquest as a valid mode by which a state could establish a legal title to territory is not surprising. For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...'
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice. SHARON KORMAN
Which clearly shows that if I know this, then so does your lying government. Wherever, I look there is a myriad of international law that supports the UK's position and not one solitary piece that supports Argentina. The more you, or your nation makes any utterances the more of your deceit is revealed, it couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of people.
#106
Apr 13th, 2015 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But the Soup Dragon did !!!!
107
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are a couple of things you are missing....
1....Paragraphs...
2...An apostrophe and an E....as in You're...
3...Why on earth do you insist that Britain owns the Falklands by Conquest...when there was not a war or battle...who fought whom...? For there to be a Conquest...?
This is probably why Britain does not support YOUR Theory of Conquest....
Vestige...Think...Stevie...and god Knows who else....
The truth is...I'm the voice of Terence Hill...of Brazil....;-)
Why do some brain dead argies truly believe that THEY have a right to independence, but the Falkland's don't,
Apr 13th, 2015 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They, have a right to self determination, but the islanders don't,
THEY
have a right of claim, but the islanders don't.
please tell us, your reply as usual will be interesting.
109 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 13th, 2015 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's the substance not the form that counts. “3...Why on earth do you insist that Britain owns the Falklands by Conquest...when there was not a war or battle...who fought whom...? For there to be a Conquest...?” Wrong again to wit: p.214 “Taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible, however, without any military resistance on the part of the victim. Provided that a unilateral act of force performed by one State against another is not considered to be war in itself (war being, according to traditional opinion, ”a contention between two or more States through their armed forces” and hence at least a bilateral action) annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” It makes no difference whether the annexation takes place after an occupatio bellica or not.“
General theory of law and state by Hans Kelsen
”Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. . . . judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.”
Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman
@109 a_voice
Apr 13th, 2015 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I love seeing Voice getting soundly thumped by Content and Logic, so that he flails about, reaching for his twin trump cards of Punctuation and Derision!
Terence Hill - 10 points
Sophist - nil
#103: My attitude?, Almost all resolutions of the UN GA and the DC regarding the Malvinas Islands refers to a colonial situation, and to a sovereignty dispute, a dispute where is not mentioned as an argentine dispute. It is a sovereignty dispute between the uk and Argentina.
Apr 13th, 2015 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you british now pretend me to believe that the sovereignty dispute is only an argentine dispute and that the islands are defined as a colony becouse of an argentine influence in the Decolonization Committe and the General Assembly as well, becouse all resolutions they made says the same thing the DC says. Amazing!!!!!!.
The UN Isolde do not said you have to negotiate (in way of automatic transfer) sovereignty. Of course is not the same to say negotiate sovereignty than saying sovereignty negotiations. In the first case you have to negotiate with the other part who keep what, and in the second case, it has more of dialogue, talks, arbitration, any deal both nations can agree to end peacefully and according to international law the sovereignty dispute.
Security council res 502 of 1982, do not constitute a definition to the sovereignty dispute, nor a recognition of self determination rights for islanders. Having said that, if Argentina would had a veto power, that resolution would not have existed. But the UN exist as it is and yes Argentina did not complied with that resolution. neither the uk.
Well i dont know you Isolde, cant say for sure if we have things in common or not, but if you live in the islands, we certainly have in common that we live in the same continent, and we are both south americans?.
#104: How on earth could had Argentina engineered a “dispute”???? please explain me. The british came one day in 1833, expelled us and implanted its own population. At the very same time the argentine government protested, and eureka, we have a sovereignty dispute. So you invaded and we have engineered a dispute?.
111
Apr 13th, 2015 - 10:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh no there he goes half quoting Hans Kelsen again...
It really doesn't matter whether it's annexed without a battle it's still classed as warfare...and against international law...according to Hans Kelsen ...
Which would of course have been revealed if you had completed his words...you little tinker....
So I'll do it for you...
”(Occupatio bellica, the belligerent occupation of enemy territory, is a specific aim of warfare; it does not, in itself, imply a territorial change.)
If the extension of the efficacy of a national legal order to the territorial sphere of validity of another national legal order, the efficacious annexation of the territory of one State by another State implies a violation of international law, the guilty State, as pointed out, exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular international law.”......Hans Kelsen.
...and it's not like you haven't tried to deceive folk before with this half quote is it Terry...
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/06/13/falklands-hero-and-1982-governor-sir-rex-hunt-honoured-by-foreign-secretary#comment254290
112
Your Typical Wannabe M.O....as usual...only he is easily exposed with his deceit...
What's wrong have you no faith....don't you think I can handle ...Terry Hill the cherry paragraph picking bullshitter from Brazil...;-)))))
114
Apr 13th, 2015 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm laughing because that's right, you can't handle Terry, and now you will have to find a face-saving way to withdraw.
Good luck on that!
LOL
Are you blind as well as stupid....the old fraud conveniently leaves off the last paragraph of the quote that destroys his position....
Apr 13th, 2015 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...but then again you already know that...just don't like to admit your champion got trounced and exposed....with his half quotes....;-))))
There are none so blind as those that will not see.....
114 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 14th, 2015 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Kelsen's continuum is obviously specific to only post 1945 and not to international law of 1833. As there is a bar on applying international law retroactively. “...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion....” The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings. A Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994.
This is the applicable international law that was in force prior to the The Kellogg–Briand Pact. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kellogg–Briand_Pact
”All human history is pervaded by the struggle of two principles: one of them embodied in the slogan, Macht geht vor Recht; the other in the Roman maxim, Ex iniuria ius non oritur. In the field of territorial change the first principle prevailed unchallenged throughout the centuries, embodied in the so-called 'right of conquest.' Robert Langer, Seizure of Territory, 1947
Gentlemen, if you contest the right of conquest, you cannot have read the history of your own country. It is thus that states are formed... The Poles themselves committed the crime of conquest a hundredfold ...(Otto von Bismarck, speech in the Landtag, 1869, responding to a Polish deputy who had quoted Macaulay on the crime of the Partitions and was demanding recognition of 'Polish rights')
...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history”
THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
So in conclusion, the part of Kelsen I quote is a historical recap which is applicable to 1833, when conquest was legal. Whereas, the section you quote is clearly specific to post 1945 and is barred from being app
116 just a_voice
Apr 14th, 2015 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Terence Hill researches his statements well, his arguments are logical and well written.
Quite unlike your own lazy braying responses.
You just like to hear your own _voice.
Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 14th, 2015 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0So in addition to Kelsen's “taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory”. Is further endorsed by ”...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history” international lawyer who's Principal works include Chapters on Current International Law and the League of Nations (1929); International Change and International Peace (1932); Some Aspects of the Covenant of the League of Nations (1934); Aspects of Modern International Law (1939) http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1093/oi/authority.20110803095820363.
You have still failed to produce any authority that supports the proposition that 'there has to be a war For there to be a Conquest'. Argentina's claim “the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833.” Is still a culpable admission by Argentina, that she has no legal claim.
Hahaha Terry....
Apr 14th, 2015 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is fairly obvious that you have not read Kelsen...none of his theories applies to post 1945 as he wrote them in 1934...
you state...
“So in conclusion, the part of Kelsen I quote is a historical recap which is applicable to 1833, when conquest was legal. Whereas, the section you quote is clearly specific to post 1945 ”
read it again..
”If the extension of the efficacy of a national legal order to the territorial sphere of validity of another national legal order, the efficacious annexation of the territory of one State by another State implies a violation of international law, the guilty State, as pointed out, exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular international law.”.
So in 1934 he thought that the annexation of territory by conquest or occupation was against international law...
...and it's not a different section it's the very next line of your Kelsen quote...conveniently omitted...which you would only know if you read it....
Try reading the section on State and International Law instead of State and Territory....somewhat different....
Why not come clean before I work out which book you have, that uses parts of quotes to support an argument...
....is it Peter Pepper picked a peck of pickled Pascoe...?
I will work it out from your quotes...the clock is ticking...come clean you have a cherry picking book don't you....;-))))
120 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 14th, 2015 - 11:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your correct as to not 1945 as he uses the term “implies a violation of international law”. Which must be predicated on on The Kellogg–Briand Pact, which had not been universally accepted. But regardless, it is still an interpretation of international law as it was in 1934 that could not be applied retroactively. My claim of the legality conquest in 1833 is supported by numerous legal writers, and is further supported by the PCA ruling in the Island of Palms 1928. You have failed to produce any authority to refute this contention. You have still failed to produce any authority that supports the proposition that 'there has to be a war For there to be a Conquest'. Argentina's claim “the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833.” Is still a culpable admission by Argentina, that she has no legal claim.
121
Apr 14th, 2015 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“My claim of the legality conquest in 1833 is supported by numerous legal writers”
...but not Kelsen....so don't use him again....
...little by little I will whittle away your selective incomplete quotes until a new book comes out for you to purchase....
122 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 14th, 2015 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will continue to use Kelsen since the only addition you have shown is that conquest was probably not legal in 1934. But everybody already knows that, it still doesn't invalidate his earlier statement since most writing goes from earliest to the latest as to its conclusory remarks. I claim E&EO as I had not read further. But, he's is still only stating that “implies a violation of international law” which was how aggression in 1934 and not in 1833 was viewed. You have still failed to produce any authority that supports the proposition that 'there has to be a war For there to be a Conquest'. Argentina's claim “the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833.” Is still a culpable admission by Argentina, that she has no legal claim.
@113
Apr 14th, 2015 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're missing the point. Leaving aside for a second the fact t he whole dispute is an artificial construct long after the event, the essential fact of the so-calked “dispute”' at this moment, is hat Argentina has rejected any avenue that coukd possibly lead to a resolution of the dispute. Specifically, it rejects warfare (if only or reasons of capability), it rejects legality, it rejecs any approach involving the islanders. It claims to want dialogue and negotiation, but knowingly insists on conditions, notably the exclusion of the people most directly concerned, which render any real dialogue or negotiation impossible. Moreover, it goes out of its way to get up the nise, at every conceivable opportunity, of the very people it claims to want to dialogue and negtiate with., which is hardly a strategy conducive to a successful negotiation. There are only three possible conclusions to be drawn: either a) the Argentin government is breathtakingly stupid or b) the Argentine government does not want dialogue and negotiation at all or c) the Argentine government cares only about short term manipulation of the population, and couldn't care less that every action it takes makes any possibility of ever acquiring sovereignity more and more remote.
@130
Nice try, but we are not talking about “the efficacious annexation of the territory of one state by another state” since there is no legal or reasonable yardstick by which the Falklands were Argentine in 1833.
124 HansNiesund
Apr 14th, 2015 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats perfectly correct as the point is not whether Argentina held sovereignty. But, could conquest take place without a a war? and Kelsen says it can. Which is further supported by John Fischer Williams as apposed to Voice, Vestige, Think, et al unsupported personal opinion.
Everyone can rest assured that Argentina’s comical “claim” to the Falkland Islands will disappear into the Pampas dust like previous great Argentinian causes.
Apr 14th, 2015 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An earlier source of fury, bravado and humiliation was its dispute with Chile over three islands in the Beagle Channel off Tierra del Fuego.
These had always been controlled by the Chileans but during the middle years of the 20th century Argentina threatened all-out war in pursuit of an invented claim. Eventually both countries submitted the dispute to a court of arbitration at the International Court of Justice which in 1977 ruled in Chile’s favour. Naturally Argentina refused to accept this binding judgement.
Finally, after Buenos Aires aborted a military invasion of the islands, it agreed to accept the Pope’s mediation and in 1984 Chile’s ownership was recognised. So Argentina was left licking its wounds and seeking another great cause to distract its people from their country’s remorseless economic decline and the endemic corruption of its political system. Hence the Falklands.
No doubt in due course Buenos Aires will have to accept the reality of yet another lost cause, leaving it to turn its attention to delusion and illusion elsewhere. How about a claim to the parts of Paraguay's Chaco not annexed by Argentina after the War of the Triple Alliance in 1876?
That should keep the larynxes of rabble-rousing presidents at full volume for a few decades.
125
Apr 14th, 2015 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's a pity you are struggling with understanding English....your quotes merely confirmed that it is known as Annexation and not Conquest that is all....
Show me where he said annexation of a territory is known as Conquest...
here...I'll help you out with the other part of Kelsens quote that you do not know about...
...“When, on the contrary, the territory belonged to another State, one speaks of ”annexation“ having in mind the case of ”Conquest“, that is , the case of taking possession of enemy territory through military force in time of war.”
...that was the previous line before your quote....another part you obviously didn't read......;-))))
So to recap so that you can't fail to understand this time....
Conquest:....The taking possession of enemy territory through military force in time of war.
Annexation:..The taking possession of enemy territory without a war.
...are we learning yet...?
an·nex·a·tion
Apr 14th, 2015 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ˌanekˈsāSH(ə)n/
noun
the action of annexing something, especially territory.
“the annexation of Austria”
synonyms: seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation
“the annexation of Texas in 1845”
“annexation
If you're a big powerful country and you want to take over a smaller country, or a piece of it, you can simply occupy it with your army, a process known as annexation.
One of history's most famous examples of annexation was the German occupation of parts of Czechoslovakia in 1938, which became one of the causes of World War II. Although the most common use of annexation is in the sense of a political or military takeover of territory, it can also refer to less major acts of acquisition. If you manage to steal your colleague's much-coveted corner office at work, that too is an annexation.”
http://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/annexation
128
Apr 14th, 2015 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear...you are out of your depth...go back to your usual MO of snide remarks on other threads...
Leave this to the big boys....
Conquest
noun
1.
the act or state of conquering or the state of being conquered; vanquishment.
Conquer
verb (used with object)
1.
to acquire by force of arms; win in war:
....not quite the same as annexation is it.....as defined by Kelsen.....Doh!....
Leiard
Apr 14th, 2015 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Posted this, an interesting article it might help,,,,
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2013/03/the-united-states-should-recognize-british-sovereignty-over-the-falkland-islands
U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon recently stated: “[T]he impression is that people living under those conditions [of colonialism] should have [a] certain level of capacities to decide their own future, and this is the main criteria from the main U.N. bodies: achieving independence or having [a] certain degree of self government in their territories.” He also added, however, that “I don’t think it [the Falkland Islands] is an issue of abuse or violation of relevant U.N. resolutions.”[
In the context of Argentina’s campaign of intimidation, the unbroken record of British sovereignty over the Islands, and the wishes of the Falkland Islanders themselves, the U.S. policy is wrong. It is also dangerous. By regularly calling for negotiations, the U.S. is encouraging Argentina to persist in its campaign. If Argentina should take military action against the Islands
the U.S. would be partly responsible for encouraging that aggression. The only threat to the peace of the South Atlantic derives from Argentina: By siding with Argentina, the U.S. is making that threat worse.
The U.S. also risks the loss of British sympathy and access to British bases around the world. Finally, by refusing to respect the results of the referendum, the U.S. is helping to deny the Islanders the right to choose their own form of government, a right on which the U.S. itself was founded.
Kirchner’s mention of U.N. resolutions is telling, if irrelevant: The resolutions in question were adopted by the U.N. General Assembly and therefore lack binding legal authority.
U.N. Resolution 1514 of 1960, which Argentina claims supports its case, refers clearly to the fact that “all peoples have the right to self-determination and in virtue of that right can freely determine their political condition
.
http://en.mercopress.com/2012/11/12/ban-ki-moon-and-colonialism-people-should-be-able-to-decide-their-own-future
Apr 14th, 2015 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0127 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 14th, 2015 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are the party claiming originally that 'conquest couldn't take place without a war.' . So while you quibble about nuances that are completely a “red-herring” as they are specific only to in “time of war”. Whereas my assertion was specific to 'taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's will is possible in time of peace.' As to annexation vis-a-vi conquest my dictionary defines 'annexation' as 'seizure, occupation, invasion, conquest, takeover, appropriation. So since the words are interchangeable and on occasion the authorities and Argentina have used the word 'force' to convey the same meaning. Moreover, “The right of conquest is the right of a conqueror to territory taken by force of arms” From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. So is it now your intention to quibble that Argentina didn't mean conquest but merely annexation?
“writers it is true have treated the annexation of ... Cracow in 1846 ...as instances of acquisition of title by conquest ...the mere seizure of territory by force of arms, even in the absence of war, was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor...” p.101 THE RIGHT OF CONQUEST: The Acquisition of Territory by Force in International Law and Practice SHARON KORMAN
129 Voice,
Apr 14th, 2015 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...is playing at semantics, while according to The Hague, Annexation is seen as coming only after Conquest and the Subjugation.
“Rights under Conquest and Occupation, are limited... under Annexation, it is unlimited.”
Conquest vs Annexation
https://books.google.ca/books?id=-z5HRoVEt90C&pg=PA10&lpg=PA9&ots=LRJwg0UI5V&focus=viewport&dq=difference+between+conquest+and+annexation&output=html_text
Sorry Voice, you do nothing but make assumptions and attempt to obfuscate the real meaning.
132
Apr 14th, 2015 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...and I am right...a Conquest can not take place without a force of arms...the dictionary is quite clear on the definition...Kelsen is quite clear of the definition...so there was NO CONQUEST...only an Annexation....
So your claim of Conquest was rubbish and I was indeed right to correct you...
The British Govt would appear as fools if they ever claimed there was a claim for Conquest...
...but apparently you don't mind appearing a fool....
...if I was you I'd ditch that book you keep using.....it's full of part quotes that when examined in the entirety.... actually declare the opposite of your argument....
...Terry Hill the Cherry Picker from São Paulo Brazil...;-)))
Errrrr so the Falkland Islands are British!
Apr 14th, 2015 - 10:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@126
Apr 14th, 2015 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, but I'm going to have to differ with that. Obviously enough, if you've got a proper populist demagoguery to run, you need a foreign enemy, and the Falkands provides a much better play in this respect than anything else in Latin America, since it brings into the equation a whole evil gringo pirate colonialists versus the hermanos latinos dimension, which allows you to galvanize the gullible from all points of the political spectrum. What else could unite, for example, our very own Supatupa Stevie and the rabid junta lover Jose Malvinero?
It's even better, of course, if you can poison your children's minds with it at an earliest possible age, and paint yourself into a corner in various ways, so to ensure that your grievance can never be resolved in any way satisfactory to you. That way you've got something that can run and run.
Posters on this board often suggest that Argentina has never invented anything of consequence, but the Malvinas grievance is a source of wonder to political scientists all over the globe, as well as a genuine living relic of the 1930s. It deserves much more credit than it usually gets.
134 Voice
Apr 15th, 2015 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice try.
It only says you can't have Annexation without Conquest, Subjugation, and later, Annexation.
You're grasping at straws.
Betrayed by your own arrogance
134 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 15th, 2015 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Conquest can not take place without a force of arms” Oh dear it must all those aliases that confusing you. Let me remind you it is Argentina with their culpable admission that first raised the issue thus:
”Both Argentine 2007 pamphlets repeat the standard Argentine view of the legal position in the Falklands dispute (English p. 5, Spanish p. 11):
the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833...“ p.39 Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
So what is this unknown 'force' the British used if it wasn't 'force of arms'? Here's your President Fernandez referring to this mysterious word again “Argentina was forcibly stripped of the Malvinas Islands,...” In an open letter to the British PM. Which was due to be published in the British national newspaper “The Guardian” on January 3rd 2013. So the question is what was this force and how was it applied. But regardless, however they affected this mysterious force, what it resulted in “was sufficient in the 18th and 19th centuries to vest good title in the possessor”. So may the force be with you as your obviously getting beside yourself.
Another humiliating defeat for Voicey!!
Apr 15th, 2015 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing left but the crying - and there will be a lot of it!
:-D
And the Falkland Islands are still British!
Apr 15th, 2015 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0138
Apr 15th, 2015 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0???....WTF...?
Instead of jumping to a completely different subject.....just be dignified and admit that you were wrong....
139
...you have obviously been reading the wrong posts....should've gone to Specsavers...
141 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 15th, 2015 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your words “Conquest can not take place without a force of arms” I haven't changed subjects. I'm simply showing where your nation has made omissions in alluding to your claim. So showing the the apparent contradictory absurdity of your assertion. So you may modestly feel you were close, but no cigar; may the force be with you.
142
Apr 15th, 2015 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Y'ah boo...sore loser...there is no contradiction, as I have never asserted there was a force of arms... for some strange reason you are confusing me with Argentina...
As for my Nation...WTF does that mean...I've never even been there....
Terry Hill the sore loser from São Paulo Brazil...;-)))
141 Voice, Vestige, Think, et al
Apr 15th, 2015 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“there is no contradiction, as I have never asserted there was a force of arms..” Your incorrect as the following clearly shows: “134 Voice: I am right...a Conquest can not take place without a force of arms...the dictionary is quite clear on the definition....” My apologies to Argentina I didn't realize that your British and just using a Aristotelian device for arguments' sake. My advice is not to attempt expand your your area onto the subject of geography, as apparently you already don't know your ass from a hole in the ground.
144
Apr 15th, 2015 - 01:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was was fun while it lasted...till you ran out of half quotes....
I'm now going to let you live to fight another day...
...until the next time...
ps....who said I was British...?
...what are you...I know where you don't live....Britain....;-)
@145 Voice
Apr 15th, 2015 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I'm now going to let you live to fight another day...
...until the next time...
ps....who said I was British...?”
Voice,
That's a laugh!
You couldn't prove your assertions.
Terence Hill
There are indications that Voice lives in Scotland, or has a cohort who does.
However, he is very definitely anti-English, and an anti-UK, Scottish romantic.
Bottom line:
Voice is not interested in the truth, he only wants attention and h'll do that by being rude and contentious.
oh voicey, do eff off, you're so boring. I have to waste time scrolling past your tiresome shit to get to the interesting posts.
Apr 17th, 2015 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, in case you hadn't realised the topic was;
“http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/10/uk-has-no-doubt-about-sovereignty-over-the-falklands-and-islanders-right-to-decide-their-future”
Remember that?
Tosser.
147
Apr 17th, 2015 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ilsen
Sent you an email
146 Troy Tempest
Apr 17th, 2015 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here's the pièce de résistance of his deliberate fraud at #134 “a Conquest can not take place without a force of arms...the dictionary is quite clear on the definition...Kelsen is quite clear of the definition...so there was NO CONQUEST...only an Annexation....So your claim of Conquest was rubbish and I was indeed right to correct you... As at #111 Kelsen clearly states ”annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” ” Voice, Vestige, Think, General.Ramon.Esperanza et al is an absolutely perfect example of classical viveza criolla at work. Game, set and match.
Still don't get it do you..Annexation is possible, but it's not called Conquest it's called Annexation...Doh!
Apr 17th, 2015 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have never won a game let alone a match....
149 Terence Hill
Apr 17th, 2015 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for that follow up.
I know that you always debate with intellectual honesty and a regard for the truth.
Voice has never been interested in the truth, just about beating down somebody else.
Clearly, he did some incomplete “cherry-picking” of his own, but I notice he didn't back up anything that he said.
He merely tried to improperly employ semantics, and insults to shout you down.
You are a class act, Terrence Hill, and obviously, a class above Voice.
Unfortunately, there will always be people like Voice, trying to subvert the truth. It takes someone like you, to step in courageously and set matters straight.
Thanks for doing that, for all of us.
Voice doesn't like people refuting what he says and standing up to him, nor does he like us sharing information and opinions amongst ourselves.
I wonder why?
150 Voice
Apr 17th, 2015 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem is I do get since the start of this debate was Argentina's claim “the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833.” Which is a culpable admission by Argentina, that she has no legal claim. The only thing that is relevant is the legal consequences, such as in the ”Island of Palmas case, decided in 1928, an international tribunal of the Permanent Court of Arbitration at the Hague explicitly recognized the validity of conquest as a mode of acquiring territory when it declared in its decision that: or “Titles of acquisition of territorial sovereignty in present-day international law are either based on an act of effective apprehension, such as occupation or conquest, or, like cession, presuppose...Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
Kelsen clearly states ”annexation is not only possible in time of war, but also in time of peace. The decisive point is that annexation, that is, taking possession of another State's territory with the intention to acquire it, constitutes acquisition of this territory even without the consent of the State to which the territory previously belonged, if the possession is “firmly established.” or ”...John Fischer Williams wrote in 1926: To say that force cannot give a good title is to divorce international law from the actual practice of nations in all known periods of history”
'Sovereignly, Seisin, and the League', BYBIL (1926), 24, at 35.”. These all comply with ”Article 38, paragraph 1 of the statute indicates that, in disputes submitted to the ICJ, the law the ICJ will apply will be:
a. international conventions, whether general or particular, establishing rules expressly recognized by contesting states;
b. international custom, as evidence of a general practice accepted as law;
c. the general principles of law recognized by civilized nations;
d. . . . judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means fo
151
Apr 17th, 2015 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Suck...suck..suck..it's what you do best.....
152
If you are going to keep repeating yourself and quoting Kelson...why not complete his quote....
“the efficacious annexation of the territory of one State by another State implies a violation of international law, the guilty State, as pointed out, exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular international law.”
..so not legal then..according to Kelsen...
..and what's with the apples and pears...since when have I agreed with Argentina that ”the United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833.”
You are grasping at straws trying derail my argument....
...come back when you have something....
151 Voice, Vestige, Think, General.Ramon.Esperanza et al
Apr 17th, 2015 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0152 Continued
1d. . . . judicial decisions and the teachings of the most highly qualified publicists of the various nations, as a subsidiary means for the determination of rules of law.” Globalization and International Law by David J. Bederman
So whether any of your piffling is of any legal weight we will never know, since it has no support that the ICJ could evaluate. So you my litle sophist you are up the legal creek without a paddle, so go tell it the judge.
I have shown clearly by no less a luminary than a former president of the ICJ, that the law in 1934 as relating to 'force' could not be applied ex post facto to 1833, as it is barred. So trying to shove such a square peg into such a round hole is just plain sophistry. So while I have complete legal support for my contention. You are just a lone monotone in a legal wilderness burbling your unsupported and unqualified opinion.
154
Apr 17th, 2015 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0at the risk of repeating myself...
at the risk of repeating myself...
told you there was a risk...
I never mentioned force...you did....
Your legal support...Kelsen doesn't support your views...did you not read what he said..?
“the efficacious annexation of the territory of one State by another State implies a violation of international law, the guilty State, as pointed out, exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular international law.”
What part of “violation of international law”..didn't you understand...?
...and what part of ”the guilty State, as pointed out, exposes itself to the sanctions provided by general or particular international law.”...didn't you understand...?
@154 Terence Hill
Apr 17th, 2015 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He doesn’t understand, narrow gauge, 2D, horizontal thinking only.
@ Voicey
Except the Falklands were British territory long before Argentina ever existed in any form.
The question is the legality of a state recovering its territory from foreign occupation.
156
Apr 17th, 2015 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unlike you that chooses to ignore all the current evidence from Oxford geneticists...
You like him are a sore loser...
...have you no shame, I'd be embarrassed to keep coming back at me with nothing...
@ Voicey
Apr 17th, 2015 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Back in the real world I have yet to see you understand an argument, never mind win one.
Answer the question directed to you:
“The question is the legality of a state recovering its territory from foreign occupation.”
Let’s see if you can understand what is being asked, and actually answer that.
Consider this a little test for you and don’t be nervous with everyone watching and all.
O.k. away you go.
151 Voice, Vestige, Think, General.Ramon.Esperanza et al
Apr 17th, 2015 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your being deliberately obtuse as I have clearly laid out out what the accepted view of retractive application international law is prohibited.
'...The rule of the intertemporal law still insists that an act must be characterized in accordance with the law in force at the time it was done, or closely on the next occasion....' p.35 The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings
a Judge of the International Court of Justice from 1982. He also served as the President of the ICJ between 1991 and 1994
In addition: https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+A.J.I.L.+285&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4f06bee01df0bc39e3c9b9044a70d8e9
Plus, “It is a well-settled principle of international law that the rules of law contemporaneous with the acts in the distant past, and not the present rules of law, control their legal significance. Otherwise havoc would be wreaked regarding titles to territory...”p.1235 “International Law,Intertemporal Problems”in ENcyclopedia of Public International Law 1234-1236(1992) D'Amato, Anthony https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+A.J.I.L.+285&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4f06bee01df0bc39e3c9b9044a70d8e9
“under the doctrine of intertemporal law and pursuant to the general principles of none-retroactivity of the law, the title to territory conquered and annexed at a time when international law allowed allowed acquisition by a conqueror, remains legally valid...”
International Law: A Dictionary by Boleslaw Adam Boczek https://litigation-essentials.lexisnexis.com/webcd/app?action=DocumentDisplay&crawlid=1&doctype=cite&docid=74+A.J.I.L.+285&srctype=smi&srcid=3B15&key=4f06bee01df0bc39e3c9b9044a70d8e9
&sig=k7IVIHYrBh_Xn2Z8fFo_3dZFGrg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VkcxVemwJOnIsQTasYHQCA&ved=0CEQQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=intertemporal%20ICJ&f=false
159
Apr 17th, 2015 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To recap...you say there was a conquest....I say there wasn't...Britain have never said there was a conquest....so who IS saying it...you...
Soooo..... was there a conquest or not and if so where is your evidence for that...?
Or are you now agreeing with Argentina that there was a conquest...?
BTW
You are also making up quotes now, as that quote...
“under the doctrine of intertemporal law and pursuant to the general principles of none-retroactivity of the law, the title to territory conquered and annexed at a time when international law allowed allowed acquisition by a conqueror, remains legally valid...”
..is not in any of your links....and certainly not that one...
http://books.google.com.br/books?id=NR7mFXCB-wgC&pg=PA227&lpg=PA227&dq=intertemporal+ICJ&source=bl&ots=Q77ygLJuj&sig=k7IVIHYrBh_Xn2Z8fFo_3dZFGrg&hl=en&sa=X&ei=VkcxVemwJOnIsQTasYHQCA#v=onepage&q=intertemporal%20ICJ&f=false
160 Voice, Vestige, Think, General.Ramon.Esperanza et al
Apr 17th, 2015 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your being still deliberately obtuse as you cannot refute what is blindingly obvious under international law, is that the UK holds sovereignty of the Islands. While Argentina has not one piece of international law on which to refute that contention. “You are also making up quotes now” If that was true you would have proved it. As for the quote from The Acquisition of Territory in International Law By Robert Yewdall Jennings you find the link and try and refute his statement. Go on, prove he didn't make it, especially as there are two other links reinforcing the same assertion.
The link is there, do you want to read it for you?. A simple 'find' command of the word 'intertemporal' delivers it. On p.213 under section '194 Conquest and Subjugation', nineteenth line down; starting the fifth word preceding subsection (205). Your critically out of any viable options. So go on tell it to the judge haha.
161
Apr 17th, 2015 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1829, the Duke of Wellington observed: “I have perused the papers respecting the Falkland Islands. It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.”
Britain has not and has never had any sovereignty over East Falkland even the Duke knew that....
As for your selective quoting....
“Yet, the argument that titles based on conquests in the colonial era, though acceptable at their time, were no longer valid in today's international law, was used by India in it's conquest of Portuguese Goa in 1961. This action was acquiesed in by most UN members as politically correct within the context of anti-colonialsm, and eventually even recognised by Portugal.”
International Law: A Dictionary by Boleslaw Adam Boczek
So your claim of colonial conquest has been proved to not always mean legal title forever....
So go on tell it to the judge haha....
It's so much fun using your own links against you....
162 Voice, Vestige, Think, General.Ramon.Esperanza et al
Apr 18th, 2015 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Goa was an exception that was not reversed, as politically correct, although it was still illegal under international law. If Argentina thinks she can successfully imitate India, then what's holding her back, go ahead make my day. Caught you in the same lie that all you puppets have been fed. Here's the correct post and source, you can thank me later. The Duke of Wellington REALLY said “It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of ALL these islands. http://www.archives.soton.ac.uk/wellington/results.php?count=1 So regardless of Goa, the UK still holds the legal sovereignty and there is no legitimate power on earth to change that. So now that I've schooled you on the application of 'intertemporal law' you won't be misapplying your Kelsen observation of modern law to Islands again. It's still noted that you could not refute Argentina's culpable admission that the ”United Kingdom occupied the islands by force in 1833...”; or that the UK holds the legal sovereignty of the Islands. Nor that 'taking possession through military force of the territory of another State against the latter's was once possible in time of peace.' All that sophism and so little to show for it.
163
Apr 18th, 2015 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Supported by most of the UN members.....that makes a mockery of your legal title...
So in the case of India answer the question...did Portugal's Colonial Sovereignty help them retain it.....
I'll answer for you as I know you won't ...NO
...and WTF are you talking about...Caught out in what lie....Can't you even read...no wonder you are unable to read all the contradictions in your links...jeez...
my quote....
It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.”
your quote...
Duke of Wellington REALLY said “It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of ALL these islands.
...should've gone to specsavers...Doh!...;-))))))
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/10/uk-has-no-doubt-about-sovereignty-over-the-falklands-and-islanders-right-to-decide-their-future#comment393177
I'm becoming slightly embarrassed with all your mistakes...
162 Voice, Vestige, Think, General.Ramon.Esperanza et al
Apr 18th, 2015 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Supported by most of the UN members.....that makes a mockery of your legal title...” doesn't make a mockery of anything of mine, but, the same can't be said for Portugal. The only reason that happened, was because Portugal acquiesced as it was obviously part and parcel of India; the UK had already accepted Indian independence.
I stand corrected, good for you as you did not make the usual omission of the word 'all', but then it still seems to have no relevancy other than muddying the waters. But, Wellington was assured on July 28th, when Sir Herbert Jenner’s legal opinion was given; “the symbols of property and possession which were left upon the islands sufficiently denote the intention of the British Government to retain those rights which they previously acquired.”
But Goa's is not the same as the Islands as history has shown us. “I'm becoming slightly embarrassed with all your mistakes...” Your so kind, don't be as I'm not, as the the only person that's never made a mistake has never done anything. I make mistakes, but then I've never claimed to be anything but human, therefore I claim E&EO and I have amended every all errors. You as usual have avoided all the specifics I've put you. While I have been able to show every assertion you have made is not legally tenable. So I'm well able to tie you up with your myriad of loose ends, which has meant for you; much work and little return.
164 Voice
Apr 18th, 2015 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0”It is not clear to me that we have ever possessed the sovereignty of all these islands.”
Oh, geez... that old saw...
You have given an incomplete quote, out of context, and without the relevant reply.
Just as Marcos tried before...
It's almost like you're the same person...
and you looked like idiots back then, too.
http://en.mercopress.com/2013/08/20/falklands-under-british-sovereignty-since-1765-says-commissioner-drake#comment270008
@166 Troy Tempest
Apr 18th, 2015 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You have given an incomplete quote, out of context, and without the relevant reply.”
Exactly.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!