MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Maduro claims he will not rest until a Celac summit is held in Malvinas Argentinas
Venezuelan president Nicolas Maduro was the only leader to take time during the recent Celac summit, to make a public statement on the Falklands/Malvinas pledging full support for Argentina's sovereignty claim over the Islands and promising not to rest until “the dream of Malvinas Argentinas comes true”. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesMaduro really is second rate!
Jan 29th, 2016 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0He knows he's supposed to trot out the populist deflections but he's just so far behind everyone else who has pretty much moved on.
He will be rest-less then :-)
Jan 29th, 2016 - 05:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Inmaduro-Maduro is perhaps the most perfect moron, south of the Rio Grande.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Philippe
He's barking at the moon if he thinks the Falkland Islands will one day belong to Argentina.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 07:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Barking at the moon.
He is right, it is a dream.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, the Argentines can have their mythical mal-something or other.
We'll keep the Falklands thank you very much.
Why does he bother? He has more important problems to resolve in his own country and, anyway, what can a former bus driver in Caracas know about the history of the BRITISH Falkland Islands?
Jan 29th, 2016 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Moron!
Jan 29th, 2016 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maduro, “promising not to rest until “the dream of Malvinas Argentinas comes true””.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rest in peace as that dream is dead and buried.
Bit of a racist bastard me thinks.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0He looks like a clown, he talks like a clown, the only thing he lacks is that conical hat and a red nose. Send him some toilet rolls, and a letter of support from VoiceofThink.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0So the National Assembly is going to curtail his daily cadena nacional. And they are calling for him to be recalled. http://www.losandes.com.ar/article/oposicion-impulsa-la-ley-anticadenas-de-radio-y-television
Jan 29th, 2016 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.losandes.com.ar/article/oposicion-impulsa-la-ley-anticadenas-de-radio-y-television
Time for this buffoon to go. Maybe he can join cfk in the prison of their choice....
Maduro's comments and actions really are pathetic.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0His country is in a true crisis, right now.
People are suffering.
He hasn't had a clue on how to turn it around.
The outlook for the near future looks even worse...
And the only way he can look strong, relevant and like a leader is to bring up the old, tired Falklands/Malvinas issue.
So sad.
Why do weak inconsequential countries feel the need to have so many talking conferences and “official” statements?
Jan 29th, 2016 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody knows what this group is
Nobody knows what this group does
and People care even less
It must be just an ego thing where they can spout nonsense with like minded people and then they think everyone agrees with them.
Its the problem with every bureaucracy.
One would think Maduro would be more worried he has to use the small amout of gold reserves he has left to buy food for his starving population.
Fitting end to Socialism though.
:)
@ 13 Kind of like the Republican debate last night
Jan 29th, 2016 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 014. Why would an Rg watch that? You've got enough problems in your own country to worry about, don't you?
Jan 29th, 2016 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't even watch it.
The important word is “struggle”. Argieland “struggled” and lost. And now it's gabble, gabble, gabble. To which Britain occasionally responds. Of course, argieland knows better than to try a military option again. Maduro doesn't have the military “strength” argieland had in '82. Gabble, gabble, gabble.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Venezuela has replaced Argentina as the North Korea of South America.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 014. You know I was just thinking about something and it shows how unique and great the society of the USA is;
Jan 29th, 2016 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where is it possible for a Presidential Candidate getting national support who's mother and father came as refugees from an Enemy State and were a maid and bartender!?
Their son could be elected to the most powerful position in the World?
That's why were great and no other nation on earth will ever rival the USA.
It really makes me proud.
Most RGS I met over the past few weeks can give a flying fuck about the Falklands. Electricity prices, meat and jobs, inflation are their concerns. It seems only the Argentines in Canada and Europe who post here care about the Falklands as a primary concern. Go figure.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#19 Captain Poppy
Jan 29th, 2016 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, I need to agree with your statement above. Malvinas is not high in Argentines' mind--especially at this time.
However, it will not go away either but continue to simmer until the conditions are right.
Continue to simmer.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bahahaha
Its only brought out by whacky Rg gov'ts to use as a distraction for their ineptitude.
Reekie is like someone who gets on an elevator passes gas then gets off at the next floor.
Looks like he'll be resting precisely... never.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands will not be Argentine when Madurine is gibbering incoherently in their equivalent of an old folks home.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh wait-he's gibbering incoherently now.
Guess he hasn't offered to move all those Sukhois down to Patagonia to initiate airstrikes against MPA, yet.
Perhaps he wants a real challenge, waiting till the Typhoons are armed with the meteor missile?
Quequi, explain to me why you think the Falkland belong to Argentina.......because some, like you continue to claim they are? Hell, the USA can make a stronger claim that Cuba is ours. We not only spilled blood over Cuba, we also signed a treaty and paid money for Cuba. Get over it. Better yet, return to Argentina and make the claim from there, not in Canada. Join the other 10 Argentines who care about the Falklands being Argentinas.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@20 “However, it will not go away either but continue to simmer until the conditions are right.”
Jan 29th, 2016 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0----
Generalisimo Francisco Franco is also going to continue to simmer until the conditions are right.
@20
Jan 29th, 2016 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Conditions right for exactly what?
Maduro
Jan 29th, 2016 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0P--- O--
What is this crazy man from another south american country to try to poke his fingers into other countrys affairs.About time someone this man keeps his nose out,the british goverment and falkland islanders has already made thier desicions on this ,and this crazy man should shut his mouth and remember this does not cocern him one bit.
Jan 29th, 2016 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why cruise ships that dock in the Falklands are accepted in South America ports?
Jan 29th, 2016 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think this continental block a joke!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlJ1u1GgaFs&index=196&list=FLmXPTu1f8AdGlizWNiASx2A
“until a Celac summit is held in Malvinas Argentinas”
Jan 29th, 2016 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree 95 percent.
It will be great when a Celac summit is held in The Falkland Islands, signalling that the Latin American states finally have acknowledged the BOT.
The joke is on us, folks.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Malvinas Argentinas” is a backwater town in the Colón department of Córdoba province, with a population of about 12,000 people and 46,000 loose dogs.
So if bus-driver Maduro wishes to have a gabfest in the Córdoba province, we really ought to give him the opportunity, but I'd count the silverware and toilet paper rolls before he leaves.
@30
Jan 30th, 2016 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you have GOOGLE EARTH APP type in Malvinas Argentinas and press search and what do you get? Correct A little town in Cordoba with all the street names that are inherent in ALL towns in Argentina. Go on try it folks and GOOGLE EARTH APP is free to download.
One thing is for sure, if Argentina is relying on friends like Venezuela to support their aspirations, they are always destined to fail.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yesterday Argentina grounded ALL of its fighters,
Jan 30th, 2016 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0they now have NO air force,
the ships have no ammo, and the subs are sunk,
they will be lucky to remain as one country.
“El Conductor” is saying this shit as a peace leaf to Macri. At the end of the day Macri cares little to none about the Argentine claim of the islands. Economics, security and infrastructure is his agenda. Maduro knows he needs Macri not the other way around. I not sure I saw any articles that even remotely suggest Argentina is relying on Venezuela. I'm not even sure why Argentina would even want the Falklands other than a distraction the the destruction of a country that those idiots, kirchner's caused. Let's hope that the new Neisman investigation connects murder to as slips kircher, I think many across the world would rejoice seeing her behind bars.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@34 Argentina seem to have two remaining 9-foot Zodiacs with 15HP motors, so they could pose a threat to peace in the South Atlantic.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine air force is not only lacking operational fighters, it doesn't even have its own working trainers at the moment, so they have to rent them from Germany. They ended up with some recycled Grob G120TP propeller aircraft which were built in Germany but “assembled” in Argentina, and their navy and air force fliers have to use these to get enough hours. Of the ten Grobs they have, only about half of those are actually operational.
It gets better: in 2014, Argentine naval aviation “graduated” exactly FOUR aviators. And in 2015, just two.
Remember that Argentina couldn't patch together a ship to supply its squats in British Antarctica? So it was going to lease a Russian ice-going ship? Well, in true Kirchner fashion, Argentina didn't make the necessary payment for the Russian ship, and the Russians don't screw around with credit for the Argentines. So the ship was delayed pending, you know, payment. It finally got to La Plata last week, delayed two months due to the non-payment.
Such is the Argentina of the Kirchners, and its rightful place in the fourth world.
@34
Jan 30th, 2016 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yesterday Argentina grounded ALL of its fighters,”
The Fightinghawks or the Tucanos newly kitted out with machine guns?
Watch out MPA!
@ 34 Briton “and the subs are sunk”
Jan 30th, 2016 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but, but, but, subs are supposed to be under water :-)
perhaps not forever, though :)
You do know what a “submarino” is here in Argentina, right? A glass of hot milk with a chunk of dark chocolate. The chocolate is the submarine and it melts and sinks. Just like the larger ones at the ports and piers.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks people
Jan 30th, 2016 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems then Argentina is falling apart,
Thus they may well just unilaterally disarm and become a land of monasteries
Inhabited by monks
.
THE HYPOCRITICAL COMMON SENSE.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The u. k. has been persistent on it's intent of imposing a hypocritical common sense, in relation to the Malvinas cause.
The u. k. and the government from the islands have always said that if most of the islanders take many generations living in the islands, then the discussion about the sovereignty, must be treated only if they wish it, which is something than even the biggest idiot in the world would agree on it, however, they sistematicly omit that the main reason why they could remain under british government, is because since Argentina was forced to leave the islands in 1833, the nation has always been deprived of exercising it's legitimate rights over the archipelago, except for the 76 days of invasion, ordered by the criminal junta, as you can see, it's not necesary to be so smart to realize that it's pretty obvious that the islanders were going to keep on rejecting the discussions with Argentina for the sovereignty.
I have discussed in planty of opportunities with many people about the weak and the strong aspects of the arguments of both nations, beside, i have also signalized what both parts omit, however, it's evident that the U. K. and the islanders, haven't understood yet that the true spirit of the right to self determination or of a referendum, is to give the dependent nations, the opportunity of getting the independence, it can't be used to keep a situation of dependence, beside, public international right doens't apply the principle of self dtermination for absolutly all people under any circunstance.
On the other hand, if president Macri wants to defend human rights, instead of asking for the liberation of somebody like leopoldo Lopez, who tried to take a constitutional government out, with violent protests where the lemma was, la salida (out), it would be better if he stops repressing the social protests as he does, or if he ceased on his intents of changing laws by decree.
This is 2016, Axel, not 1833. Try to understand.
Jan 30th, 2016 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 041
Jan 31st, 2016 - 12:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“is to give the dependent nations, the opportunity of getting the independence”
The UK is responsible for the Falklands Foreign relations...
The UK is currently signed up to around 14,000 international treaties and is a member of major international organisations....
The Islanders have a UK status and citizenship....
A new independent country would have to renegotiate its relationship with world bodies and countries...visas..visa waivers...etc.
Independence for a couple of thousand people....I think not...
Think before you speak....
@41 Axel,
Jan 31st, 2016 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“-the nation has always been deprived of exercising its legitimate rights over the archipelago”
Axel, baby. -you & Argentina have NO LEGITIMATE RIGHTS over the archipelago.
The sooner that you get that in your fuzzy little head, the sooner we can progress.
Got it, Axel?
Argentina has NO RIGHTS here.
NADA
Estimado Axel, cuento corto: los isleños han dicho que no desean tener nada que ver con la Argentina. Nada. Cero. Jamás. Jamás de los jamáses. Que no les importa lo que opina la Argentina sobre el asunto, ni lo que opina los demás paises juguete. Ni en pedo. Caso cerrado y chau.
Jan 31st, 2016 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0“We must also celebrate the ratified solidarity position with Argentina and its struggle for sovereignty over the Malvinas Islands.”
Jan 31st, 2016 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if this Muppet actually knows where the Falklands are?
45
Jan 31st, 2016 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel is quite capable of reading and understanding English...
If you want to converse in Spanish...piss off onto the Spanish site...
No one is impressed that you can reply in Spanish...so why bother...
Axel, like Voice, needs all the help he/she/it/they can get in understanding that the Falklands don't want to have anything to do with Argentina, and for good reason.
Jan 31st, 2016 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@41
Jan 31st, 2016 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina was forced to leave the islands in 1833, the ”
The military was asked to leave-most of Pinedo's sailors were BRITISH, not South American so they didn't fight.
The United Provinces/ Buenos Aires Government had received prior warning and a protest from Britain that a UP military force was landed on the Falklands in 1832. (Britain had no objection to the settlers as Vernet asked permission from the British consulate in BA to be there).
Britain had a prior claim, she did not just turn up in 1833.
Next you are going to say that British sailors were landed from HMS Clio and HMS Tyne to replace the South American settlers.
When in fact 15 of the settlers allowed to stay in 1833 were South American one of them, Antonio Rivero.
About 2 0r 3 of the settlers were British (including Scots and Irish).
Ironically the most British participants in 1833 (apart from the crew of the Clio and Tyne who departed the Islands in their ships were Pinedo's sailors who all got sent to BA
“So the fact that the United Provinces ignored the British warning, is no defence.
then the discussion about the sovereignty, must be treated only if they wish it, which is something than even the biggest idiot in the world would agree on it,”
So what you are saying is that if Argentine families have been in Argentina for several generations and that their families originated from Spain rather than from Argentina itself, then they all need to book tickets back to Spain-yes?
lts no use trying to reason with Axel.
Jan 31st, 2016 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hes as thick as half a brick & is another one who cannot accept that his precious Argentina was defeated in 1982 & has always been wrong about the Falklands.
Hey Axel, Argentina has NO RIGHTS in the Falklands. snigger.
I hope MADuro is getting ready to spin in his grave then because this ain't going to happen
Feb 01st, 2016 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maduro hallucinates that Argentina and the other sympathisers of Argentina will offer economic-aid to Venezuela so that he can remain in power.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0@50
Feb 01st, 2016 - 12:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“lts no use trying to reason with Axel.”
Correct-but I like spewing out the facts to test whether he can counter them.
If Argentina had a real case-these posts would be full of evidence and points to counter the pro-Falkland side.
It appears to me, that every time we hear this garbage of self determination doesn't apply, or concerning 18th/19th century history, posters like Terence Hill, Brit Bob et al find more evidence to counter Argentina's claim, but the Malvanistas don't find more supporting evidence for their claim.
That speaks volumes.
Their only counter appears to be-a load of crackpot regimes where democracy isn't high on the list support Argentina's claim.
MARTIN LLAZO (45).
Feb 01st, 2016 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can understand that perhaps you don't care about our legititmate claim for the Malvinas, however the defence of our rights over the archipelago isn't a kirchnerist caprice, it's actualy a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION, can you understand what is it?, i'm sure you can. Whoever rules the country in the future, will have to claim for the islands, anyway, it's well known that conservatives have never given a shit about sovereignty, they just care about business, that's why it's expectable that Macri doens't move not ven one finger to get more international support for our case, as Nestor and Cristina did, he jus will claim before the U. N., and every january 3rd.
PETE BOG (53).
I have discussed with you about the historic and the legal aspects of this conflict, beside, i signalized what both parts omit, and i have told you also about the reason why i think that neather ARG., nor the U. K. decide to take the case to an arbitration, anybody can agree or not on my arguments, but everything i say is based on investigations about public international right.
Axel, how about Argentina's “ constitutional” claim to oil on the moon? That was easy to enact, wasn't it? Didn't have to ask anyone. Remember that Argentina's constitution doesn't matter to anyone. Your claim to the Falklands simply doesn't matter, either. So long as Argentina continues to make silly claims, it will be seen as foolish and ridiculous. Of course there are other reasons to be seen as foolish and ridiculous.
Feb 01st, 2016 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 054 axel
Feb 01st, 2016 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Our legitimate claim for the Malvinas,
= if it’s legitimate, take it to the ICJ =
, it's actually a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION,
=inserted by a lunatic, it means nothing =
Whoever rules the country in the future, will have to claim for the islands,
= just change the constitution =
Anyway, it's well known that conservatives have never given a shit about sovereignty, they just care about business,
=and Argentina cares abt what!
, but everything I say is based on investigations about public international right.
=then show the results of this investigation please.
.
#54 : “I can understand that perhaps you don't care about our legititmate claim for the Malvinas”
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0There would be concern, and some discussion, if your claim had the slightest legitimacy. As you know ful well, though, that's just nonsense.
“ however the defence of our rights over the archipelago”
You have none.
“it's actualy a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION, can you understand what is it?”
You can pass a 'constitutional obligation' over anything you like. You can pass a motion that London is rightfully yours.
If your claim is so strong, go to the ICJ.
And your claim that the UK wouldn't go there is nonsense - you were asked in the 40s and 50s to go there. You refused three times.
The UK doesn't have to take the claim there though, because there's nothing for the UK to discuss with you. At all.
SCEPTIC64.
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have said this in many of my comments.
In 1884 and 1888, ARG. suggested taking the case to an arbitration, which was rejected by the U. K., but in 1947 Britain manifested that it would be disposed to discuss about the cases of the dependencies from the islands (South Georgia and Sandwich) at the I. C. J, in fact, it made an unilateral presentation, however it never included the Malvinas in that idea, after that year, neather ARG. nor the U. K. have proposed again to take the cause to an arbitration. If it soposes that only ARG. must decide whether the cause should be taken or not to the I. C. J., as some people in this forum say, then why did the U. K. accept to discuss about the case of the dependencies before that organism?. For being honest, if none of the two nations proposes to take the case to an arbitration, is because perhaps both aren't sure of getting a good result, if the case is analized before the I. C. J.
axel if the Falklands are Argentina and you want it back and the Brits aren't,
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WHY ARE YOU NOT TAKING THEM TO THE ICJ?
Do you not comprehend that Britain has no reason to take it to the ICJ, only Argentina does. Why in the freaking world would Britain take Argentina to the ICJ, to “make them stop making false claims”? Really?
Guess what now axel? Macri can give a rats ass about the Falklands. He my make a passing mention of the Falklands here and there to pacify those who have been indoctrinated already over the re-written and fabricated history, but Marci wants nothing to do with them. There is nothing there other then fishing rights and he knows that.
Get over it axel!!! Christ almightly already.
You know axel, the purchasing power of the peso sure is not what it used to be. Fortunately all my purchased get exhanged into dollars.
Post Conflict
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/black-buck-runways-1982-falkland-islands-conflict/post-conflict/
Nice story and pictures of Stanley airport before and after the war.
Black Buck and the Runways of the 1982 Falkland Islands Conflict
http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/black-buck-runways-1982-falkland-islands-conflict/post-conflict/
.
@54 Axel
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“it's actualy a CONSTITUTIONAL OBLIGATION”
The UK could add a law that claimed Patagonia because it was settled by British farmers, some from the Falklands, long before your brothers in BA moved South.
I suspect that the Argentines now living in Patagonia might through the self determination Argentina says does not exist, raise an objection to the UK claiming Patagonia even though British farmers were the first (apart from the local Amerindians of course) to settle there.
You apply this flawed logic to the Falklands .
Argentines might point to the fact that they have settled Patagonia for a long time and the people living there now may not want to be British.
But what you are saying that if Britain claimed Patagonia, by including it in the statute books, would make it make it a legal claim, even though the people of Patagonia might object.
Just like the Papal Bull where some of the world was carved up between the Spanish and Portuguese, Argentina's claim is only applicable to Argentines and no one else, so is irrelevant.
@54 -- Since the first permanent European settlement in Tierra del Fuego was established by the Bridges family, also very British, let us have the UK insert a constitutional passage claiming all of Tierra del Fuego ! See how easy that was?
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alright, you jabbering hierba-sucking greaseballs, off my fooking island !!
41 axel arg
Feb 02nd, 2016 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“since Argentina was forced to leave the islands in 1833”
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong,WRONG!!!!!!!!
In 1833, my misinformed friend, there was no “Argentina”
There was only “United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata”
So that kinda blows that whole argument out of the water doesn't it??
Axel: the UK went to the ICJ in the 40s to seek a ruling because Argentina was encroaching on he FI dependencies rather than the Falklands themselves: the reason was to back up the UK's opposition to Argentine sorties on these territories.
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina, though, said it wouldn't abide by any ruling the court made.
So what would be the purpose of taking your pathetic claim to an international court when you say you will ignore the ruling?
Take it to the ICJ yourselves if you have a claim. Back it up with all your re-written history and lies and watch it get taken to pieces bit by bit.
Or do the proper thing and accept the reality of the situation, and give up your colonialist rhetoric. It is not suited to the modern era.
PETE BOG (54).
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are mixing two situations which are absolutly different, you should know that although there were many british farmers in patagonia in XIX century, doens't mean that the U. K. can claim for sovereign rights over those territories, because those settlements weren't made in the name of the british crown, as it did in the Malvinas in 1833.
On the other hand, even in case that Britain had discovered the islands, which is absolutly controversial, according to public international right, discovery just gives a precarious tittle, which must be improved with a permanent occupation, and the U. K. just occupied port egmont permanently for 8 years, and then it left the place for more than 50 years. Anyway, if somebody asks me whether britain had sovereign rights over the islands or not in 1833, according to my investigations, i would answer that it had, because in the Nootka Sound treaty, signed between the U. K. and Spain in 1790, there was a secret article that allowed Britain to stablish a settlement over the archipelago, if a third power carried on an occupation too, but our country had sovereign rights because the sussesion of states principle could be applied for this case. For many years, unless the Soledad island (east falkland),was under spanish government, like all the rest of the viceroalty, that's why it had right to occupy the islands. If the U. K. thought it had sovereign rights over the islands, it should have negotiated with our country, or perhaps it could share the sovereignty, instead of forcing such a weak nation to leave the place.
CAPTAIN POPPY-SCEPTIC64:
It's pretty evident that you both don't want to accept that the U. K. rejected TWICE to discuss the question of the Malvinas before an arbitration, if you want to discuss about this cause, you should be more serious, instead of having a pathetic doble standard, you all already know why i think that none of the two nations goes to the I. C. J.
I do not have to be more serious. It's no hair off my ass as an American. ANd, from what I can see, neither is it for the Islanders nor the Brits. And, are you talking arbitration or ICJ?
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finally, if...IF for no other fucking reason, because all the others do not penetrate the mass of your cranium, the last matter to understand if not other ones will, why Argentina does not get the Falklands......
YOU LOST THE FUCKING WAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!SINCE WHEN DO LOSERS GET REPARATIONS? THIS IS NOT A CHILDRENS SPORT WHERE YOU GET A PARTICIPATION AWARD.........DO YOU GET IT???????????
Axel grease, do you get it now? You and your like and what you think is irrelavent. In 2100 the Falklands and the other South Atlantic Islands will still be British. Go argue with a brick wall, you will probably have more success.
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now do you understand, Axel?
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has NO RIGHTS in the Falklands.
Go peddle your lies elsewhere.
ldiota!
Axel cannot be made to understand. He is argento, and suffering from the results of the usual Peronist brainwashing:
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, sos incoherente peronacho, por eso no podés entender, tenés el cerebro bien lavado. Las islas, el archipelago.... no pertenecen a Argentina.
Axel
Feb 03rd, 2016 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A question I have asked before a few times.
Argentina is the 6 or is it 8th largest country in the world with a population of about 43 million.
The Falklands are a island group that could fit into one of your smaller provinces twice over? it has fishing licences and sheep,maybe some oil but at the price now it's not an important asset .
So if you can put the politics and history to the side as we are not going to agree!
Why the feke are you so bothered,it's going to make not the sligtest difference to Argentina and the population want nothing to do with Argentina.
'but our country had sovereign rights because the sussesion of states principle could be applied for this case.'
Feb 04th, 2016 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel,
Wrong. Succesion of states is the consequence of a change of sovereignty over a territory, not the cause. If sovereignty over a particular territory has not passed from one state to another, then there is no state succession over that territory.
Argentina claims that sovereignty passed from Spain to the UP via UPJ when it declared independence. But this impossible because UPJ at the time was not a rule of international law that could have made any sovereignty over any territory whatsoever pass from Spain to any of its rebel colonies. The applicable international law to any historical event is the international law in existence when that event happened, not laws established after it took place.
Fact is that, without Spanish consent, any sovereignty the UP and other rebel colonies may have had could only have been obtained by establishing effective control of territory, and the UP never established effective control of the Falklands.
...and how does one establish effective control...?
Feb 04th, 2016 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Establish a colony perhaps...
Appoint a governor perhaps...
...maybe even put a garrison there...
...hey...wait a minute....
Effective control of the whole archipelago. UP had a presence in Port Louis, a very small part of the Falklands. And it never managed to even control that.
Feb 04th, 2016 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The colony had British permission
The governor was murdered within a few weeks of arriving. By members of the garrison.
How can effective control be exercised by a murdered governor !
Feb 04th, 2016 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who's wife was raped in front of his children?
REF: “Maduro claims he will not rest”
Feb 04th, 2016 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- it is jst a claim and not a persistent action
- the announcement is a diversion from his main problem [of not being able to save his own tail/ar*e].
DAB14763.
Feb 04th, 2016 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although i don't agree on your lecture, i'll tell you what i think about it, because unless you neather missrespected me, nor underestimated me, as some other people did, in fact, just have a look to the other comments.
Firstly, the U. P. didn't need Spain's permission to declare our independence or to occupy unless the Soledad islands, which had been submitted to the jurisdiction of the Viceroalty, under spanish government, like all the rest of the colony, in fact, after our declaration of independence, Spain never claimed for it's ex colony.
On the other hand, it's not true that the U. P. never exercised an effective control over the islands, in fact, there were a few governors who were named by the government, beside, local legislation was imposed in the place, in my investigation i have public documents that signalize it, anyway, it's necesary to say that in that context it was pretty difficult to have an effective control over the Malvinas, because we were in the middle of an intern war, beside, our settlement was attacked by the U. S. A. in 1832, but even after that terrible episode, an interin governor was named too, and was forced to leave the place when the british usurped the territory.
@76 “ ... because we were in the middle of an intern war, ”
Feb 04th, 2016 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hope the nurses made it out alive.
@76 deluded Axel,
Feb 04th, 2016 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0blah blah blah blah, stop lying, Axel.
@77 Marti,
lolz!
76# axel arg
Feb 05th, 2016 - 07:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“.... it's necesary to say that in that context it was pretty difficult to have an effective control over the Malvinas, because we were in the middle of an intern war, beside, our settlement was attacked by the U. S. A. in 1832, but even after that terrible episode, an interin governor was named too, and was forced to leave the place when the british usurped the territory.”
All of the above indicates that Argentina did not exercise effective control of the Falklands. The UPs attempts to exercise control were challenged and disrupted by the itinerant seafarers who used the islands, the U.S who stated that it did not recognise UP sovereignty and the British who didn't usurp the Falklands, as you claim, but reclaimed them.
Britain held a claim to the Falklands for hundreds of years before the upstart UP revolutionaries tried to bit off more than they could chew.
DOWNNUNDER.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although neather you nor some others agree on my lectures, everything i say in my lectures, is based on the public documents that i included in my investigations.
On the other hand, i recommend you to read my comment 65 that i wrote for pete bog, there i refer to the britain's soposed previous claim.
@80 axel,
Feb 06th, 2016 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no valid claim & no rights in the Falklands, axel.
Just open your eyes & stop lying.
Axel, sos argento y boludo. Pero no entendés lo boludo que sos.
Feb 06th, 2016 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@65
Feb 06th, 2016 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“and the U. K. just occupied port egmont permanently for 8 years”
Because it needed its forces in the USA but left the claim on a plaque. So the claim was not abandoned.
“anyway, it's necesary to say that in that context it was pretty difficult to have an effective control over the Malvinas,”
So, because the United Provinces were fighting everyone, not enabling them to have effective control over the Falkland Islands, that, according to you, substantiates Argentina's claim, but because Great Britain was fighting wars with he USA , leading to the withdrawal of man power that ceased effective occupation , that goes against the British claim?
The context is EXACTLY the same.
Therefore, if it goes against the British claim that they did not effectively occupy the Falklands from 1774 to 1833, therefore, as the United Provinces have not effectively occupied the Falklands from 1833 to 1982, and then from 1982 to 2016, it must also go against Argentina's claim that there has not been effective possession since 1833.
United Province's/ Argentina's 193 years of non effective possession totals more than the 50 years of non effective possession of Great Britain-so as you wish, let us apply CONTEXT here too.
Also Britain's possession of Port Egmont from 1765-1774 was LESS sporadic than the so called UP possession, which effectively was not from 1820(no settlement), not from 1823 (THREE YEARS LATER!) because that packed up and went home. The 1825 settlement failed. So effective settlement was by Vernet who.got. permission. from. Great. Britain. to. be. there.
How can you substantiate a claim when the leader of the settlement sought permission from the British Consulate in Buenos Aires to be there?
Then the USA in 1831(NOT 1832), ejected the settlers.
That did not allow CONTINOUS settlement.
So your claim of settlement from 1820 to 1833, that in fact was not continuous, but broken- was therefore not as long as the UK's 1765-1774.
Not as long as 1833-2016
“is based on the public documents that i included in my investigations.”
Feb 07th, 2016 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, the funny thing about investigations is that when you have a conclusion in mind, they tend to only see, find and uncover results related to a pre-determined conclusion. You've long displayed your lack of objectivity and unbiased opining.
As for your “lectured”. Go to school. No one wanted to be lectured by an opinionated, semi communist/socialist with a bias for Argentina. It is understood your bias being an Argentine. But save us the bullshit of your make believe moral high road of impartiality. If you continue to sling this level of bullshit, I suggest you preface your posts with:
Here ya! Here Ya! The bullshit faucet shall flow, runneth for thee boots!!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!