MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Malvinas question: Macri should surround himself of prudent, skilful advisors, says ex Army chief
A former Argentine Army chief and Malvinas veteran, General Martin Balza said on Tuesday that president Mauricio Macri's government must “strengthen its dissuasion and negotiation capacities” in the Malvinas Islands question, and should surround himself of prudent advisors on the matter. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesI think Susana Malcorra is doing pretty well:
Jan 04th, 2017 - 10:35 am - Link - Report abuse +4Malcorra - Transplanted population MercoPress 10 Nov 2016. Malcorra said that historically the Argentine position was not to acknowledge for this case in particular the “self determination of peoples”, because 'kelpers' (Falkland Islanders) are a transplanted population, not aborigine. Hm. Let's see: Falklands – Implanted Population:
https://www.academia.edu/30505159/Falklands_Implanted_Population
And then there was Alicia Castro:
'the UK and Argentina have a historic opportunity to set an example to the world by resolving this dispute by peaceful and diplomatic means, as called for by as many as 40 UN resolutions since 1965.' (Alicia Castro, the Guardian 11 March 2013).
Falklands: 1833 Usurpation & UN Resolutions:
https://www.academia.edu/30505159/Falklands_Implanted_Population
What next?
I love Mercopress translations. It's 'a national agglutinating feeling' and 'goes beyond any comprehensible political, ideological or partisan position' - too right it goes beyond any comprehensible position, it seems like some people are positively obsessed.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse +1Macri knows the truth. It's the rest of the brainwashed idiots that are the problem. The Falklands are British. Argentines need to get used to that fact.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse +10“Macri should surround himself of prudent, skilful advisors...”
Jan 04th, 2017 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Good luck with that.
Likewise, MercoPiss should surround itself with skillful writers and editors.
Good luck with that.
We should stop pussy footing around on this issue. Argentina is intent on pressing their claim no matter what. We should state that we consider an actions taken against the Islands as a potential act of war and treat them as a hostile country. They are no friends of the UK, they have proven that over the decade. They are the vultures, in any and every instance where they perceive that that can take advantage of our misfortune they try it on.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +5@ DT
Jan 04th, 2017 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse +4When people are inculcated from birth to believe the English pirates stole their beloved island and if only they got it back everything would be wonderful in Argentina, you start to understand the obsession.
Would be better to say indoctrinated rather than “ inculcated ” as the Argies on here would not understand given their education system.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“strengthen its dissuasion and negotiation capacities”
Jan 04th, 2017 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +6Acquainting themselves with history would be a help, then they would realise the Malvinas Myth is just that.
Negotiation is not in the Argentine vocabulary, it requires offering something the other side wants.
Everything they want to offer, (based on going back to the 1970s communication agreement), the islanders already have or is provided by someone else as Argentina has forgotten that 1982-to the present has happened.
@EB
Jan 04th, 2017 - 01:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't understand why they're so beloved either. A lot of people in Argentina complain about how horrible the climate is and wonder why anyone would want to live there, and there are plenty of isolated, windswept places available in Argentina already.
@Pete Bog
They are offering additional flights now aren't they?
Anyway they don't have to offer anything, they could just go the route of using threats instead. That seemed to be CFK's plan.
Prudent? Argentina? I never ever thought I would see these two words in the same article!
Jan 04th, 2017 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Pete Bog
Jan 04th, 2017 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -10...“Acquainting themselves with history would be a help,”
Perhaps you could acquaint me with the historical British Claim to East Falkland...because as far as history tells us...and that includes the British version...
They have never had one....
Drone drone drone..
Jan 04th, 2017 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Thicko still hasn't got it...
Falklands subsidy less than £100 million
Scotch subsidy £4 billion +
@ DT
Jan 04th, 2017 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse +5The Argentines didn't much care about the island before Juan Peron decided to use it to unite the country behind a common enemy. He studied Mussolini's brand of fascism and in order to bring together a rather disparate country he chose the Malvinas myth. It is recorded that even he didn't think Argentines would swallow it whole but they embraced it with enthusiasm. The English had done rather well in Argentina so they were an obvious target as 'the enemy' as there would be more loot to steal if they kicked them out. That and the English irritated the unnecessarily inflated inferiority complex nursed by a lot of Argentines. I think it is misplaced and they should stop over-compensating for it by boasting they are the greatest at everything and just let it go.
SInce Peron created the Peronist culture that still exists in Argentina, perpetuating the myth is essential even if it is proved time and again to be a nonsense. It is embedded in the culture to believe it and to doubt it might require some reflection about the whole mass manipulation of the masses for the last 70 years. They might have to accept they once had it all and lost it due to their own mismanagement rather than play the victim and blame everyone else. And if they stopped believing that if only the had the mystical Malvinas that Argentina would be the greatest country in the world, well, they would have to face reality.
You have to live amongst them to understand how entrenched the idea is in the culture. You can offer any amount of logical evidence and they will just look at you as if you just told a child that Santa Claus doesn't exist. But I would also add that a lot of people really don't care to much about it on a day to day basis. It is just there at the back of the mind. More worrying is the insecurity and inflation.
Scottish subsidy certainly less than the North of England, the Welsh and Northern Ireland subsidies and what is their output....sweet FA....
Jan 04th, 2017 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Look to your own failings before casting Nasturtiums...;-)
Anyone coming forward to acquaint me with the claim to East Falkland yet...
Thought not...
Claims may be interesting but still remain irrelavent. Possession and self determination counts for everything in today's world.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +4As for the claim to East Falkland perhaps Voice would like to spell out the real reason for his grudge against the Islanders and perhaps we'll acquaint him with the detail of the claim to East Falkland?
From the viewpoint of Argentine malvinistas, the worst the Macri government can do is to involve 'highly qualified advisors', as they would make it quite clear, based on documents in the 'Archivo General Nacional de la republica', that Argentina has the same right to the Falkland Islands as she has to Iceland.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +5- - -
Even if we ignore events before 1833, the British claim to the Falkland Islands is at least as well founded as Argentina's claim to Patagonia (taken by force from the indigenous population), to the provinces Chaco, Formosa and Misiones (taken by force from Paraguay), to the entire Argentina of 1816 (taken by force from Spain), to any part of South America (taken by force from the indigenous population).
Taking a territory by force was acknowledged as legal by international law until 1918. Thus even if we assume that Great Britain had no previous claim to the Falkland Islands, Britain's claim to the entire archipelago has been valid for more than 184 years.
I reckon you are going to have to show me that bit of history where the British took the archipelago by force...184 years ago...
Jan 04th, 2017 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse -9Otherwise your statement makes no sense..
I won't hold my breath...
The sun came up today.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +5There is water in the Atlantic.
The Falklands are British.
I guess the General enjoys getting his ass kicked.... He should be in the first wave next time....
Jan 04th, 2017 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The usual mumbo-jumbo from Voice who, in denial of well documented history, is trolling as usual.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse +5@Voice
Jan 04th, 2017 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Are you saying they were or weren't taken by force in 1833?
@Voice
Jan 04th, 2017 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +4You can't 'take' something by force that already belongs to you, but you can recover it.
You see, Voice, the Falkland Islands have been British for a very long time, since 1690 when they were 1st discovered and named Falklands.
Now my maths is a bit rusty, but 1690 comes before 1833.
So in 1833 the Falklands were British territory, so when Capt Onslow of HMS Clio arrived at the Falklands to remove a foreign military presence, they were recovering that territory.
No one was actually removed by force. Why? Because the United Provinces (Argentina didn't exist at the time) military penal colony had already failed. The men had mutinied, murdered their Commanding Officer, Capt Mestivier, raped his wife (in front of her own children), and then went on a rampage.
The military penal colony had been on the Islands for only 6 weeks when Capt Onslow arrived.
The mutineers were rounded up and handed to Capt Pinedo of the UP ship Sarandi. No shots were fired by either side...so hardly 'forced'.
No civilians were expelled from the Islands...that is an Argentine lie that is easily disproved. Even Argentina's national archive shows that this is lie. Yes their OWN national archive states that successive Argentine governments have been LYING for years.
So, no civilian population expelled. The civilian population that was there prior to the UP military showing up and trying to steal the islands, had been there for several years WITH British permission.
After the UP troops left the Islands, Capt Onslow left the mighty Union flag with one of the colonists, and he left too.
Yet despite there being no British military presence the UP NEVER returned. Why? Because they knew that the islands didn't belong to them and didn't want to waste more time and money, and risk another confrontation with the British.
It's all there, in numerous historical documents, if you want to take your blinkers off and check for yourself.
Voice isn't actually saying anything.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Voice is trolling, has always been trolling.
Last year he (under his previous user name A_Voice) was challenged to accept the historical documentation, which can be found in AGN.
A_Voice then chose to reject it as accepting would prove the invalidity of the Argentine claim and the validity of the British claim.
Where he is going to find 'prudent and skilled' advisors in Argentina?
Jan 04th, 2017 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Anyone?
Huh...mumbo jumbo...?
Jan 04th, 2017 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -5Britain was not the first to sight the islands...and since when has discovery without settlement given legal entitlement...?
Britain was not the first to settle the islands, East Falkland already had a settlement on it when the British sneakily occupied Saunder's Island...in 1766, that's two years after the founding of Port Louis by Bougainville...
So tell me how can one claim East Falkland when it had already been settled...huh...huh..?
Perhaps y'all should refer to the well documented history...
I think that Argentina had a provisional “prudent and skilled” advisor once, brought in from Guatemala, but it seems that the dish-washers' union didn't appreciate the assistance.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Ha ha,
Jan 04th, 2017 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Thinkvoice DEMANDS that we account for the Falklands being British.
Just ask a Falklander, Thinkvoice.
Best go there in person, if you are even admissable...
Oh right, you never travel - can't afford it, or criminal record?
Anyone coming forward to acquaint me with the claim that East Falkland belongs to Argentina or the whole of the FALKLANDS come to that ?
Jan 04th, 2017 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Hmm, so using your logical train of thought Voice, what claim has Argentina on any of the Islands, East, West, North or South. And, who from those that originally sighted, claimed or settled the Islands are claiming them now? Are France or Spain claiming East Falkland?.....So tell us how can one (Argentina) claim so many Islands in the South Atlantic, when they had already been settled.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Yes, mumbo-jumbo.
Jan 04th, 2017 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse +5As stated earlier: “ Taking a territory by force was acknowledged as legal by international law until 1918. Thus even if we assume that Great Britain had no previous claim to the Falkland Islands, Britain's claim to the entire archipelago has been valid for more than 184 years.”
Was that it.. the best you could come up with is Britain's claim is they took it by force...?
Jan 04th, 2017 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Did you read any of LEPRecon's post at all...?
Show me one, just one document that verifies that claim...
Stanley and most of the population exist on an island that Britain has never had a claim to...FACT!
I am not going to waste time on a trolling clown.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse +6International law was clear in 1833, the United Kingdom gained indisputable sovereignity over the Falkland Islands, as I documented in a debate with “Hermes1967” on Mercopress in 2016.
Show me a link or stop talking nonsense...
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse -8..and never mind 1833...the United Kingdom in 2017 still hasn't gained Indisputable Sovereignty over the Islands...search UN...or Sovereinty recognition..
So your debate is obviously nonsense...
Go back to giving us news updates instead...at least they were facts....or were they...I'm not so sure now...
You have well and truly bitten off more than you can chew....
Pssst..... Voicey. It doesn't matter. The Falklands are British. And no matter how many, um, compelling arguments you invent, it's not going to change anything.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse +6Get used to it.
It is a matter of historical accuracy and all those that are handy with the phrase the Malvinas Myth...
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse -9It should be the EAST FALKLAND myth...
The only possible claim Britain has ever had is to West Falkland...
So as long as folk keep trying to change history...I will keep quoting the facts...
GET USED TO IT....
A_voiceofThink,
Jan 05th, 2017 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse +3“..and never mind 1833...the United Kingdom in 2017 still hasn't gained Indisputable Sovereignty over the Islands...search UN...or Sovereinty recognition”
Ha ha, sure!
Who says so, a needy Troll in search of a dopamine fix??
Not even Argentina pays anything more than lip service to the “Malvinas Myth” as its recognised outside la-la land.
“But but but... ” says pouty MacTrollvoice.
Balza underlined that Malvinas is “a national cause, a reason of State, a national agglutinating feeling, that goes beyond any comprehensible political, ideological or partisan position”.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse +5‘that goes beyond comprehensible’ The veteran Generalissimo got that part right. The entire Argentine position on the Falklands falls far short of comprehension and rests in the realm of fantasy.
I am not sure that President Macri will be taking seriously any advice a retired Argentine general offers on the Falklands. It was the military junta that illegally invaded the Falklands then refused to comply with a binding UN SC resolution to leave then demonstrated their complete incompetence in matters military.
With demonstrated incompetence on that scale, I am surprised that this self-declared ‘expert’ has the front to even stick his head above the parapet.
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse -4This was the first time I ever saw the word “agglutinating”.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse +2Within 25 years a female know through her on-line persona as 'Hepatia' will finally be released from Broadmoor Hospital for the criminally insane, having been detained on charges of stalking a minor member of the Royal family at a polo match.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse +3“It's the jodphurs”, she was heard to exclaim as she was lead away, “I can't stop thinking about the jodphurs!”
The court was satisfied that this individual, after a long incarceration and anti-psychotic medication, will present no further danger to the British public, indeed the British Psychiatric Association stated that they were grateful for the opportunity to study, at length, an example of 'Malvina's syndrome' - “The most virulent we have thus far encountered”.
@Voice
Jan 05th, 2017 - 08:33 am - Link - Report abuse +5Are you actually claiming that in 1833 Britain had no rights to East Falkland, but didn't take it by force either? That makes no sense.
Gunboat diplomacy...works just as well as the use of force...without using force...
Jan 05th, 2017 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse -6They were asked to leave...or else...
@ R. Ben Madison 'This was the first time I ever saw the word “agglutinating”.'
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse +1---
I've noticed that the Anónima here [local grocery; a chain in argentine patagonia] now has an indisputable claim to a gluten-free food section. Perhaps they have surrounded themselves with prudent and skillful advisors.
Voice - to be totally irrelavent must be sooo frustrating. Have a blast on yer bagpipes.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse +3Whats the grudge?
At least Balza is smart enough his country's weaknesses:
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse +1http://www.lanacion.com.ar/555130-martin-balza-chile-hubiera-ganado-una-guerra
News flash: according to government officials and a petulant teenage blogger from West Bodø, the French department of Saône-et-Loire was never properly claimed and incorporated. The matter is significant because it throws open the larger question of sovereignty for the entire nation of France, leaving the country exposed to Argentine pretensions.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Film at 11.
-----------------
@Condorito “ ”....At least Balza is smart enough....“
Correct. And that much was acknowledged by Argentina's military long ago. It gets better: even though Chile had neither the interest nor the capability to successfully ”invade” Argentina during the 1982 Falklands war, Argentina kept its better troops on the continent out of a chimerical fear of attack by Chile and a two-front war. Argentina believed that the UK was providing arms and other materiél to Chile (which was true, but on a small scale). The thinly-disguised movements of crack Chilean troops near vulnerable Argentine frontier positions were coordinated with UK intelligence to put doubt and fear into Argentina's gullible military planners, who elected to keep their better troops at home and thus significantly reducing the ability to counter the British landings on the Falklands. But it was all a ruse. And the ruse served both Chile and the UK very well. The disintegration of Argentina's military government in the 1982 war removed the prevailing threat of its plans to invade Chile, and the lack of qualified Argentine troops on the Falklands greatly helped the UK's quick recovery of the islands in the ground war phase. And Argentina's military defeat in that war also ultimately helped Argentina since it led to the end of the military junta and the restoration of a democratic civilian government.
Voice, your logic in this argument makes absolutely no sense. If we follow your line of reasoning to a logical conclusion, the majority of the 'Americas' have no claim on the land they live on.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Europeans were not the first to sight settle or claim the Americas. Yet here we are in the C21, with many people of European ethnicity claiming they have a right to own and govern the lands of the indigenous populations.
If you are arguing that GB/Falkland Islanders have no right to claim East Falkland after 184 years of interrupted possession, then you argue that any land taken by force or threat of force is null and void in the context of past historical conquests.
So let us assume for the purposes of fairness that GB did not have a right to claim East Falkland in 1833 only West Falkland.....who should have the right to claim East Falkland? Spain, France, certainly not Argentina as the are 'Johnny come lately's' (one of yours Voice) to the party.
So who other than the Islanders/GB as of 2017 has the historical right to claim East Falkland?
You can bleat on about your precious 'Historical Facts' all you like, but when you add all the other facts into the mix, adding the all important 'context', your argument is pointless.
@Voice
Jan 05th, 2017 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +6So you're saying that because the Argentine forces on the islands realised they had no chance of winning and had the sense to leave instead of fighting, it doesn't count as taking by force? That sounds pretty backwards to me.
@R. Ben Madison
Agglutinating means sticking or clumping together, but it's usually used in biology, not about people. That's why it made me laugh. :)
Voice
Jan 05th, 2017 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse +7“The only possible claim Britain has ever had is to West Falkland.”
When the claim was shared with France (only for 3 years)or Spain, ( 44 )years, especially after 1771, it was agreed between Spain and Britain that both would be on the Islands.
However regarding the Falklands, where were France and Spain in 1833?
In 1764 or 1766, where were Argentina regarding the claim?
It is not France or Spain claiming East (or West ) Falkland, it is Argentina.
Lep Recon
“Yet despite there being no British military presence the UP NEVER returned. Why? Because they knew that the islands didn't belong to them and didn't want to waste more time and money, and risk another confrontation with the British.”
As you correctly point out ,if the UP claim was valid they had one year unopposed to go back.
Voice
“The only possible claim Britain has ever had is to West Falkland...”
Once Spain had left the Islands, Britain was free to claim the East, Royal Navy ships had been surveying the Islands well after 1774. Britain reclaimed the islands in 1833, or as you would put it claimed East Falkland.
It has been settled by Britain ever since.
Spain have not been on East Falkland since 1811.
France have not been on East Falkland since 1867.
Vernet's settlement may or may not have been an official UP occupation for all of five years, even though Vernet had permission from Britain to be there, well before Argentina even came into existence, is the best Argentina can claim, but it does not override 184 years.
France and Spain had a valid claim to East Falkland, Argentina does not.
“Gunboat diplomacy...works just as well as the use of force...without using force...
They were asked to leave...or else..”
I did not realise that Onslow's letter to Pinedo advocated force. The reason Pinedo quit is not because British people threatened force, but that Pinedo's British sailors refused to fight.
Why were Pinedo's sailors not Argentine?
Huge holes in your argument...if England could claim East Falkland just because the Spanish left, then Spain could have claimed West Falkland when the English left...
Jan 05th, 2017 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse -7So England had no claim to either West or East in 1833...
Spain never objected to the Argentine settlement or appointment of an Argentine Governor...ever...
..and I'm sure you haven't thought out your last paragraph...
”I did not realise that Onslow's letter to Pinedo advocated force. The reason Pinedo quit is not because British people threatened force, but that Pinedo's British sailors refused to fight.
If the British sailors refused to fight...then force must have been threatened or expected..
Hence the refusal...
@Voice
Jan 05th, 2017 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse +7So was force threatened or not? If it was threatened then that is 'taken by force', isn't it? If not then why did Pinedo leave?
DemonTree
Jan 05th, 2017 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse -8There was no war at the time between England and Argentina, neither declared nor undeclared, the Argentine Confederation as such was not “subjugated.”
Diplomatic relations with Great Britain even continued despite the strong protests made against these acts....
So there was no Conquest ..therefore Conquest as a means of acquiring title cannot and has not ever been put forward by GB concerning title...
It would also infer that their claim to historical title was defective...if it was used...
Since when has threats of force ever been considered Conquest anyway...
You are scraping the bottom of the barrel for plausible argument...
“On the 184th anniversary of the ''British usurpation'' of the South Atlantic Islands, Balza underlined that Malvinas is “a national cause, a reason of State, a national agglutinating feeling, that goes beyond any comprehensible political, ideological or partisan position”.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse +5What Balza really meant to say during his attack of verbal diahrrea, was ”...agglutinating feeling (strange feeling, no doubt), that goes beyond any comprehensible political, ideological, partisan or LOGICAL position“...
@DT
You'll soon learn that ”Voice”, just like a couple of other turds who appear on here sporadically, is an ignorant bullsh*tter trying to provoke other posters....I mean, can anyone really be as ignorant as he makes out to be ??
And the only huge hole in your argument Voice is that is 2017 and not 1833, time has a habit of deciding the course of historic events. Before the 25th May 1810, Argentina/UP didn't have any right to claim any lands as they were under Spanish rule, yet following a revolutionary war a confederation was born that claimed land previously ruled by others and in 1816 declared independence.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +4But apparently according to your logic, they have no right to claim those lands, as they were already claimed and settled.
In this case the rights to the Islands in 2017 lie with the Islanders.
...and between 1810 and 1829 when GB finally made a protest Britain had every opportunity to claim or settle East Falkland and they never...
Jan 05th, 2017 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Leaving the Spanish title to either uti possidetis or occupation of terra nullius...both being acceptable legal entitlement...by Argentina...
Jack Bauer
If you feel confident to try your hand...feel free or are you really that ignorant of the facts that you prefer to call names..shit or get off the pot, is what I say...prove me wrong...
Argentina claims that Great Britain conquered Falklands, so Voice is wrong as usual, Argentina supports the forced takeover.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse +2How does that make me wrong...?
Jan 05th, 2017 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse -7I am not interested what Argentina claims...only the facts...
Worried about what did and didn't happen in the 19th century.
Jan 05th, 2017 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Oh, dear.
It matters not.
Of far greater consequence:
99.8 percent.
Get used to it.
I have said it before...
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse -8I'll say it again...
Always a pleasure seeing you running rings around them turnips..., Mr. Voice...
@wee man voice
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4mocking, goading, repeating claims again, that have unproven, disproved, and rendered irrelevant many many times by real historians and thinking men who recognise 180 years of de facto habitation, administration, and sovereignty.
A_voiceofthink is shit-disturbing, once again.
'Leaving the Spanish title to either uti possidetis or occupation of terra nullius...both being acceptable legal entitlement...by Argentina...'
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Is that the Argentina that didn't exist yet.......
Conquest of a territory was also an acceptable legal entitlement, which GB exercised in 1833 when it reasserted it's right to West Falkland and asserted it's right over East Falkland. Just because the opposing side withdrew without a fight does not diminish the fact that GB conquered the territory, with a military force. Why is an unopposed and peaceful conquest any less acceptable than a bloody and violent conquest.
Does the spilling of blood somehow confer greater legal entitlement to the sovereignty of a territory where a bloodless one doesn't.....please provide the definition you seen to be referring too.
The facts are this, in 1833 GB claimed all the Islands and for 184 years and counting, that claim remains in place. What happened before is purely history, you cannot turn the clocks back to a date which suits your argument. Argentina has never and will never have a legal or rightful claim to the Islands, they never had a player in the game.
'Bagger,
Jan 05th, 2017 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +7It's funny that you said in one of your posts that Argentina was not guilty of invasion of the Falklands, because they did not stay.
I think that's called a “failed invasion” when the invading occupiers are forced back into the sea, or surrender in disgrace.
Their own countrymen were disgusted with them for losing.
“Is that the Argentina that didn't exist yet..”
Jan 06th, 2017 - 12:23 am - Link - Report abuse -4If Argentina didn't exist...why was it recognised by Britain and had consular relations from 1823...
....and more expressly with the execution of a treaty of amity, commerce and navigation in February, 1825....
I might remind you at this point that Argentina had already formely claimed the Islands and notified the claim in the newspapers in 1820...
Any British objections...NO...
Any Spanish objections...NO
Any Spanish recognition that Argentina existed...YES...Preliminary Peace Treaty with Argentina on July 4, 1823...
BTW...
The legal category of conquest, as developed by international law after the French Revolution and during the nineteenth century, essentially presupposed situations involving full- scale military hostilities resulting in the complete subjugation of one of the belligerents by the other. The Permanent Court of International Justice has acknowledged this concept when it stated that: “Conquest only operates as a cause of loss of sovereignty when there is a war between two states and by reason of the defeat of one of them sovereignty over territory passes from the loser to the victorious state.”102
102. Decision of Apr. 5, 1933 on the Legal Status of Eastern Greenland (Den. v. Nor.), 61.L.R. 95 (Perm. Ct. of Int'l Justice, 1933); Clipperton Island Award (Fr. v. Mex.), 6 I.L.R. 95, 99-100 (Victor Emmanuel III, King of Italy, Sole Arbiter, 1931).
They always ignore the facts Mr. Think in favour of Myth...and Nationalistic fervour....
Kanye/Troy
Are you referring to me...? If you are you are a liar...I never said any such thing...ever...
Show me...or forever hold your piece....;-)
'Bagger
Jan 06th, 2017 - 05:07 am - Link - Report abuse +6“Gunboat diplomacy...works just as well as the use of force...without using force...
They were asked to leave...or else...”
So you're saying the British invaded/usurped, but there was no violence?
Or are you saying they did NOT conquer the islands because there was no violence, and because they left?
When the proto-Argentine UP invaded the islands in 1832 and there was no violence, does that mean it was or was not a conquest.
Were they conquering the islands to gain ownership, or were they NOT conquering because there was no violence and they left without putting up a fight?
I guess they don't have a definite claim.
Perhaps they were RECOVERING the islands for the Spanish who left without a Spanish settlement, or perhaps they were RECOVERING what they had somehow “inherited” from Spain, the sovereign power they had revolted against - and then LEFT.
When Argentina landed troops in the Falklands in 1982 to occupy them, was that a conquest or “liberation” or “recovery”?
Was it an invasion?
If they surrendered and withdrew, was the conquest a failure, and therefore they gave up any claim there?
When the British arrived and threw the sorry Argentines off, re-established a British Governor, administration and British Falklander settlers for the next 34 years - was THAT a conquest?
See, your stupid statements contradict each other.
You can't dictate that any argument of your choosing applies when you want, and which claims are relevant and which are not.
Ask the people who live there, who they are.
What a petulant malicious sh!t you are.
WTF????
Jan 06th, 2017 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse -6Are you drunk...?
Or have you forgotten to put the words in the right order....?
Mr. Voice...
Jan 06th, 2017 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse -9You say...:
“They always ignore the facts Mr. Think in favour of Myth...and Nationalistic fervour....”
I say...:
Good thing you do herd them properly..., lad ;-)
- https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=x-AJJfPeBH0
Poor ol' Think, he thinks the UK is “ Engrish ” ( his words not mine ) and the United Provinces is “ Argentina ” When did the “ United Provinces” become Argentina? Date anyone, and I mean officially by the world.
Jan 06th, 2017 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse +4“Essentially presupossed”, so not definitive then....just a generalisation.
Jan 06th, 2017 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse +41933, so 100 years after 1833 the internarional court acknowledges the concept,. Are you retroactively applying that concept then Voice?
You still have not answered the question, ”Who in 2017 who other than the Islanders have a right to claim the islands.?
'Bagger Think/voice,
Jan 06th, 2017 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse +4The point is - no matter what you choose to call it in your multiple posts and multiple scenarios,
The British and the Islanders have owned, possessed, and inhabited the islands consistently for nearly 200 years.
Argentina most definitely has not.
@golfcronie
Jan 06th, 2017 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +7The United Provinces (of South America) declared their (unilateral) independence from Spain in 1816 ; in 1825 they changed the name to United Provinces of the River Plate, and in 1826 , adopted the name Argentina.....however, if not mistaken, Spain only recognized Argentina's independence in 1857..
@Voice
I don't have to prove you wrong....historical facts, easily verified, do that.
Calling you a bullsh*tter is not calling you names...it's just describing what you pass yourself off as...
Despite your ignorance, the facts won't change.
Argies seem to have a very poor grasp of their own history! Not surprising really alongside their very poor grasp of finance, economics, international relations etc etc.
Jan 06th, 2017 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse +5BTW Voice, your interesting passage regarding the 'loss of sovereignty' would suggest you accept that in 1982 when Argentina claim to have regained and liberated the islands, thus gaining sovereignty, they then lost the conflict and thus sovereignty was transferred to the UK.
Jan 06th, 2017 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse +6In which case, recent historic facts appear to suggest that the UK have every and all rights to the Islands. See how easy it is to manipulate the facts to agree with an opinion.
That must be the argument settled then, 1982 closed the book on Argentine sovereignty claims according to the facts you provided. Unless you are going to say that war was never officially declared, do it doesn't count!
If Argentina didn't exist...
Jan 06th, 2017 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +71. why was it recognised by Britain and had consular relations from 1823
2. and more expressly with the execution of a treaty of amity, commerce and navigation in February, 1825
3. I might remind you at this point that Argentina had already formely claimed the Islands and notified the claim in the newspapers in 1820
4. Any British objections...NO
5. Any Spanish objections...NO
6. Any Spanish recognition that Argentina existed...YES...Preliminary Peace Treaty with Argentina on July 4, 1823
1. It wasn't. Show us a document dated 1823 where Britain recognized Argentina. Britain did open official relations with Estado de Buenos Aires in 1823. A civil war raged 1814-1861 between the Argentine confederation and the Buenos Aires state.
2. No, as 1.
Argentinas Embrionaria = ProtoArgentina, what later became Argentina, had as late as 23 October 1859 (or 17 September 1861):
two states (La Confederación and Estado de Buenos Ayres)
two capitals (Paraná and Buenos Ayres)
two constitutions (1853 (La Confederación) and 1854 (Estado de Buenos Ayres))
two presidents (Urquiza and Alsina (titled supreme director). Santiago Derqui was confederate president 1860-61.
two senats
two congresses
3. No. Which newspapers? Jewett didn't mention it in his 13 pages report to Estado de Buenos Aires.
4. Of course not. There was no official reaction by the British Government is unsurprising as there were no diplomatic relations between Buenos Aires and Britain at that time. In 1820 the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata were only recognised by themselves.
Not until Luis Vernet (born in Hamburg, Germany) in 1832 gave a completely distorted version of Jewett's voyage in a report to Vicente de Maza, Foreign Minister of the United Provinces, did Buenos Aires hear about the alleged claim.
5. As 4.
6. Link? Spain did not acknowledge Argentina until 9 July 1859.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 06th, 2017 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +5“The historical British Claim to East Falkland....They have never had one…. …So there was no Conquest ”
The following treaties nullify any and all Argentine pretensions. Under Utrecht and Nootka, Spain had promised NEVER to cede any of her territories, and gave permission for the UK to continue further development in Islands, in the event of a third parties' intrusion. Along with shared sovereignty of the islands from the 1771 Declaration. Furthermore, the Convention of Settlement, 1850 is a peace treaty that is binding, that ends all further territorial claims. But even if these didn't exist, and the UK took them; it was perfectly legal in 1833 to wit. 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, …”10
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928)
“…According to international law, ..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 : published: Cambridge : Harvard University Press, 1945
Do you know the difference between ”…occupation or conquest, or, like cession,…”?
The problem with apparently 'Running rings' around people is that both Voice and Think end up dazed, confused, muddled and bewildered.
Jan 06th, 2017 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Think/voice does a lot of running around, but gets nowhere.
Jan 06th, 2017 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Macri? Advisors??
Macri already knows.
It seems that every few months, “Voice” has forgotten everything discussed and disproved about the Malvinas Myth, and tries it on all over again - turnip.
“Voice” needs an advisor.
Voicey should surround themselves with prudent, skillful advisors.
Jan 07th, 2017 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse +3Terry....
Jan 07th, 2017 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse -7I think it is you that does not understand what you are quoting...
The Hague was merely defining the methods of acquiring territory...
Conquest...There was no conquest
Occupation... There was no occupation of East Falkland by Britain until after 1833
Cession....No territory was ceded...
btw...Occupation in the context used in International Law...doesn't mean waltzing in and occupying it...you know...you are daft enough to think that is the case...
It means a combination of discovery, use and settlement...
Annexation is possible in time peace, but that doesn't make it legal form acquiring territory..
Now explain which of the three methods have Britain applied to East Falkland to gain legal title...?
...and if you say Conquest...show me one document, just one where the British Govt have claimed this...
just one...
The answer is....none of the three methods in International Law of acquiring territory...;-))))
Voice...Is that the international law from 1833? You keep making the same mistake by assuming you can apply modern international law retrospectively.
Jan 07th, 2017 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse +6'...and if you say Conquest...show me one document, just one where the British Govt have claimed this...
just one...'
Far easier to show you all the Argentine claims that a UK conquered by Military force and Usurped the Islands, just go back a few stories on Mercopress.
So who is right, the Argentine propaganda machine or Voice? Unfortunately one cancvels out the other.
Still, let's see it is 2017, Voice has still not answered the question as to who in 2017, has the rights to claim the islands. A fixation for a day in 1833, does not diminish the rights of the Islanders in 2017, no matter how much you want it to.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 07th, 2017 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse +5“In in the context used in International Law...doesn't mean waltzing in and occupying it.” That’s exactly what it means.
Well you getter tell the Argentine government that as an apologist you’re right, and they’ve got it wrong. ”…The the British government invaded our Islands in 1833 and forcibly expelled Argentine authorities“ Argentine ambassador in London, Alicia Castro
http://en.mercopress.com/2014/05/19/falkland-islands-governor-disrespectful-towards-argentina-islanders-would-be-better-off-under-argentina
Moreove, “..It is therefore not surprising that the 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
Whether the UK choses ito advocate such a position is neither here nor there, but nonethe less it is valid under the international law of 1833, and as such is unimpeachable under modern international law.
What happened or didn't happen 200 or so years ago is of no consequence except as amusing historical footnotes and tools for enraging the easily disturbed. Anyone who thinks the maps will be redrawn because of argument over tiny quotidian skirmishes in the 1800s would do well to seek a change in medication.
Jan 07th, 2017 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Terry me ole son...
Jan 07th, 2017 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -6.....“The the British government invaded our Islands in 1833 and forcibly expelled Argentine authorities“ Argentine ambassador in London, Alicia Castro”
Yeah I'm missing the word Conquered in that sentence...
Since when has invaded been a substitute for the word Conquered...?
The Spanish forcibly removed the British from Saunders island....
...but did they Conquer them..?
So the British never conquered Argentina..ergo no conquest...
St.John
Take a look at a copy of The Times, London, Friday, August 3, 1821).
Also...El Redactor” of Cádiz, Spain,and the Salem Gazette...you might find it interesting...
I'm luuuuuuuuving it...
Jan 07th, 2017 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -6;-))))))
Sorry A_voice of think
Jan 07th, 2017 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse +3If there was ever a “conquest” of the Falklands in 1832 or 1982( London and the UK were untouched), it was short lived and dishonourable in nature.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
:-))))
Ah Voice lying again, you clearly stated Argentina notified the claim in the news papers in 1820. Really, so, Argentina, sorry the Republic of BA took out adverts in all those papers in GB, US, Spain but forgot to actually report it in their own papers. Very forgetful of them eh Voice.
Jan 07th, 2017 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse +6But I thought you were only interested in the facts, or are you only interested in your made up facts.
Even think is loving seeing you made a fool of, not very nice of him, but at least he is honest.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 07th, 2017 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Well I suggest you pirouette your sophistry in front of the appropriate determiner. You're sure to dazzle him or her, like you do us.
You can twist and squirm all you like...but it is a simple FACT that the declaration was published in four newspapers in the USA, Spain, England and Gibraltar...
Jan 08th, 2017 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse -9Any objections...from what would surely be interested parties....None...
I reckon you are misunderstanding what Mr. Think is luuuuving...
Quite possibly the way y'all come back at me with nothing...
Now he can entertain us with his tales of how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Jan 08th, 2017 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse +7Voice wrote: “I might remind you at this point that Argentina had already formely claimed the Islands and notified the claim in the newspapers in 1820”
Jan 08th, 2017 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse +11When asked for documentation, we get a distorted list of newspapers, not including any Argentine, especially missing the official “La Gazeta de Buenos Ayres”.
The government of the United Provinces did not make any official announcement of Jewett's claim, simply because they had no knowledge of any such claim. The declaration was first reported 8 June 1821 in the “Salem Gazette”, Salem, Massachusetts; 8 days later it appeared in “Niles' Weekly Register” (Baltimore) following which the letter was reproduced 3 August 1821 in the British “The Times”, then mentioned August 1821 in a small newspaper in Cádiz [1], Spain with reference to a brief notice from Gibraltar, later reported in Argentina as a foreign news story.
Salem Gazette - this obscure biweekly (Tuesday and Friday) newspaper in one of the world's major cities (snigger) with less than 43 000 inhabitants, is what Voice think is the proper place to pronounce the acquisation of the Falkland Islands, an acquisation, which was not even mentioned in Jewett's 13 pages report to the government of Estado Buenos Aires/United Provinces of Rio de la Plata.
[1] https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bd/David_Jewett_-_Redactor_de_C%C3%A1diz_-_Agosto_de_1821.jpg
Are they dancing or just standing about...?
Jan 08th, 2017 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse -8Do you view angels as spiritual beings or materialistic...?
Depending on your view the answer is either one or an infinite number...
...are you entertained...?
It is quite entertaining to read Voice's contributions above. It is all nonsense, of course!
Jan 08th, 2017 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse +7Can a citizen raise the interest of the International Court of Justice? Then, if affirmative, HE should take Argentina's lies, myths, fairy stories and misinterpretations of historical events to The Hague so that we all can have a definitive and final opinion!
Wrong Gordo, so we can all have a larf… :-)))) Lots of turnips thrive on bullshit!
Jan 08th, 2017 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse +6Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 08th, 2017 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse +6“Yeah I'm missing the word Conquered in that sentence…”
Already previously answered so your omission is of no consequence.
“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, …”10
10 Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928)
A declaration was published and picked up by other papers over a period of months, not the official Argentine/BA Declaration as you stated, big difference Voice.
Jan 08th, 2017 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse +7Well I can't be too difficult for you to reproduce the official Republic of BA claim That is, the official government document of 1920 that was sent to the news papers, not Jewitts's made up on the Islands claim, hastily fabricated to what many believe was a cheeky move in order to gain salvage rights to a french ship to repair his own. Following the storm that forced him in the first place to hole up on the Islands.
And which one of those governments in 1820 gave Jewitt the paperwork and asked him to take possession of the Islands like he claims. I think you have over 20 chances to find what you are looking for, I am sure those changing governments in 1820 had nothing better to do.
You still have managed to avoid answering the only important question, but I won't hold my breath, you will never answer it as there is only one answer and it is not to your liking.
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 08th, 2017 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse +6“Yeah I'm missing the word Conquered in that sentence…” Don’t worry it was in the next one.
“…For conquest was clearly recognized by states as a valid mode of acquisition of territory, ...is supported by quotations from Vattel and Wheaton, who both admit prescription founded on length of time as a valid and incontestable title…that the continuous and peaceful display of territorial sovereignty (peaceful in relation to other States) is as good as a title…It is evident that Spain could not transfer more rights than she herself possessed.”
Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) (1928), RIAA 2 (1949),ß
voicey should surround themselves with prudent, skillful advisors
Jan 08th, 2017 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Now you are being weird Terry...
Jan 08th, 2017 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse -8Are you saying that the next sentence from the Argentine ambassador in London contained the word Conquered...?
..and you are surely not repeating that Conquest was a valid means of acquiring territory again...?
Well bless my soul..I never knew that...
Are you trying to say Britain conquered Argentina...?
...and what prescription was there in !833 by the British...would that be none...?
It appears you are quoting irrelevant details that has no bearing whatsoever in the time frame of 1833 when the British seized East Falkland with no prior claim whatsoever...
When you have nothing you desperately write something that is both irrelevant and nonsense...
Sweet fcuk all case (Voice v Everyone) (2107) SFA (ROFLMAO)
It's great to see everyone Googling all the Pascoe and Pepper propaganda...opinions nothing more to try and negate and discredit the facts...
!820 Jewett claimed the abandoned Falklands...for the United Provinces...FACT
1821 The declaration was published in the London Times...FACT
No one objected until 1829...FACT
Britain even had a treaty of amity, commerce and navigation in February, 1825...yet failed to mention it then...FACT
I'm luuuuuuuuuuuuving it...!
Jan 09th, 2017 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse -6Heel, lad... Sheep must be exhausted...
;-)))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 09th, 2017 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse +7“You can twist and squirm all you like...but it is a simple FACT that the declaration was published in four newspapers in the USA, Spain, England and Gibraltar..”
You certainly can Ollie, as the only official way for nations to communicate is through diplomatic notes, and Argentina didn’t comply. In fact, she acquiesced to the British position, by ignoring both their diplomatic notes.(Thus, he who keeps silent is assumed to consent; silence gives consent. SOMA'S DICTIONARY OF LATIN QUOTATIONS MAXIMS AND PHRASES) So she remained incommunicado, and resorted to force of arms to obtain an undisclosed objective i.e. the Islands. Yet has the chutzpah to complain when the UK reciprocates in kind.
Are you saying that the next sentence from the Argentine ambassador in London contained the word Conquered. My you do get desperate and thrash about. What I’m stating is the judgements of the PCA knock your sophistic ramblings aside. “Not repeating that Conquest was a valid means of acquiring territory again…?” Certainly am Ollie, as that is exactly what the PCA has stated. Be as obtuse as you want the PCA claims “prescription founded on length of time as a valid and incontestable title” is applicable. “The British seized East Falkland with no prior claim whatsoever…” Except for two diplomatic protests. So the British acted exactly like Argentina, who were barred by Anglo Spanish treaties from any claim what so ever. So at the end of the day all you can proffer is hand-puppetry.
Voice, as you haven't provided any of the official Argentine/BA communiques of which you talk, we can assume that they do not exist. Therefore Jeweitt's claim as you have suggested is a 'factual historical document' of that no one disagrees, what you have wrong is that you suggested it was an official BA claim, sanctioned, claimed and processed by them.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse +5So what have we achieved here, well
FACT: Jewitt claimed East Falkland for BA without their authority or knowledge (even years after the event) with no official diplomatic documentation to back up the claim
FACT: GB reestablished control of the Islands in 1833 taking sovereignty of both East and West Falklands, after diplomatic protests in the preceding years to BA. (No protest from Spain)
FACT: GB still has control of the Islands in 2017, with the Islanders very much in control of their future
FACT: In 2017 Argentina claim not only the whole of the Falklands, but the SS Islands and SG. Places they have absolutely no right to claim, but they still do! Unless Voice or Think can tell us why they should?
Yes Voice, you are on the thinnest of thin ice there. Can't you get Think to chip in a little more, maybe he can find all these documents to put your ”Facts' into the right context.
Stand alone facts are all very well, but taken in context, this particular one means nothing.
Still avoiding the main question though?
Not much to do in a grotty little bungalow with a tiny drive on the shore of Holy Loch where you have to move your car up the hill when the wind gets up. Boredom…
Jan 09th, 2017 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Jewett did not claim the Falkland Islands for Buenos Aires.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Jewett claimed that he claimed the Falkland Islands, which is something completely different.
Here you can read Jewett's report to the head of the Buenos Aires government.
Tell us where in his report he mentions to have claimed the Falkland Islands.
Report of Col. David Jewett, Commander of the privateer Heroina, to the Supreme Director of Buenos Aires
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Report_of_Col._David_Jewett,_Commander_of_the_privateer_Heroina,_to_the_Supreme_Director_of_Buenos_Aires,_February_1st,_1821
Interesting letter...
Jan 09th, 2017 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse -1Was there a need to to mention his commission...it would be fairly obvious to him what his commission was...
A lot of clues in the letter and assumed knowledge of the recipient of the matters mentioned...
“At this time the greatest extent of our provisions was for eighty days, and much of that in bad condition & of bad quality, which, together with the still uncertain state of the Water Casks – the situation of the ship – the conduct of the officers – the distance from the place of our ultimate destination.”
What ultimate destination...? (Falklands)
“on reaching the coast of Brazil, should the provisions, and state of the ship permit, to remain on that station as long as possible, and accordingly made the best of our way for the Islands”
What islands..? (Falklands)
“Should the disposition of Government place this Ship AGAIN in Commission it will be found necessary to give her the requiste repairs,”
What Commission...?
It appears from the letter that his commission was fulfilled...and he reported the events and was not expecting a further commission...
A Commission to claim the islands....the ultimate destination...?
It appears almost to be secretive in context...
Lots of questions and speculation, but no mention of the Falklands or the nature of his undertaking.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Pure supposition on the part of “Voice”.
Nothing more.
Voice isn't brilliant, and his is sqirming now is simply stupid.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +3No more waste of time showing him, that when Jewett in his report to the government doesn't mention a claim on the falkland Islands, then it is because he didn't claim them for tyhe Buenos Aires State.
All you have to do now Voice is find that pesky BA commission and well, you have proved what exactly....Oh yes, that GB still took East Falkland in 1833, the Islanders have them today and no one else has the right in 2017 to claim them.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Good job.
voicey voicey voicey, still counting angels on the head of that pin, still convinced that the meaningless quotidian dogfights of the early 1800s are going to have some decisive impact on the national boundaries of the 21st century. An utterly argentine waste of time, for other than the amusement value and the constant reminder of the argentine need to cling desperately to that which is most futile.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse +4Think/voice is trolling. full stop.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse +3For goodness sake...I had never read that letter before...
Jan 09th, 2017 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse -6..but it is obviously clear even to the most stupid of you that the Government in Buenos Aires commissioned Jewett to specifically travel to an “Ultimate destination”...described as “Islands”
His final destination as we can see from the letter was Port Soledad, he then sent back a report of the events of his journey to...wait for it...the Supreme Director of Buenos Aires...
Then asked to be relieved...
Ya'll blind or something...?
He sends one letter reporting he's reached Port Soledad...(obviously mission accomplished)
He gives another letter to Captain Orme to be published on his return to the US...
Ya'll blind or something...?
It's fairly obvious the mission was secret until it was achieved and notifed in the press...put it in one paper and news travels fast...
Or perhaps he should have put it in a diplomatic attache case and forwarded it to the United Provinces Embassy in London...diplomatic channels...
...wait a minute...there were no diplomats at that date...
Hey..I heard the Macri Govt are not that bothered about the Falklands... so much so that they are considering taking the case to the ICJ apparently they think they have nothing to lose and everything to gain...
Oh dear the British have everything to lose and nothing to gain...£10 says Britain refuses..
If the ICJ goes against us we will do what every good Argentinian would do and ignore it.
Jan 09th, 2017 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +4LOL, Think/voice
Jan 10th, 2017 - 03:25 am - Link - Report abuse +2A letter makes no specific reference and T/V calls it damning proof ... !
WHISTLE!!
Jan 10th, 2017 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse -7Damn, where have all the sheeple gone...?
I was just getting started...;-)
Afraid of the big, astute faol... maybe...?
Jan 10th, 2017 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse -6Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 11th, 2017 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse +4“The Macri Govt ..are considering taking the case to the ICJ ...the British have everything to lose and nothing to gain...
Exactly, it’s what they should do, when international law provides them with such a litany of legal weaponry. They could stymie the court from even proceeding with a suit from Argentina as “There is a general principle, first confirmed as early as 1885 in international law “jurisprudence, that claims may be extinguished by the passage of time. … The UK could claim that Argentina as the claimant state has had from 1899 to bring suit via the Permanent Court of Arbitration; The PCA, established by treaty in 1899.Argentina and Great Britain were both admitted as members of the League of Nations on Jan. 10, 1920. The Permanent Court of International Justice was open to all members without condition. “The principle of extinctive prescription, that is, the bar of claims by lapse of time, is recognized by international law. It has been applied by arbitration tribunals in a number of cases. The application of the principle is flexible and there are no fixed time limits….” The Falklands (Malvinas) Islands: An International Law Analysis of the Dispute Between Argentina and Great Britain Major James Francis Gravelle
England will return the Malvinas within 25 years.
Jan 11th, 2017 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse -6The Malvinas were returned, Hepathetic. Malvina Dostovic was returned to Croatia to face criminal charges stemming from some shady deals in Lancaster. And Malvina Prolotinni was sent back to Sardinia after being arrested in Portsmouth. Is there some other Malvina you might wish to have extradited?
Jan 11th, 2017 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +5Hepatitis - please confirm you mean 2042 the year that you believe that “England” will return the M------s. Your prediction is nonsense!
Jan 11th, 2017 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse +2It is incoprehensible why Voice writes that “the Government in Buenos Aires commissioned Jewett ...”
Jan 11th, 2017 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Where does Jewett's thirteen pages report mention any kind of commission to him?
Is there another document which shows any commission to Jewett regarding the Falklands?
Where and which?
The only mention of a commission is “place this Ship again in Commission” - the ship's wellknown commission as privateer.
27 February 1821 the ship was recommissioned as a privateer and the American William Robert Mason took over from Jewitt.
It is also obvious to anyone who can not only read but also understand the text, that if Jewett had been commissioned to claim any territory for the the United provinces, that would be the first and foremost in his report.
The expression “it will be found necessary to give her the requiste repairs” clearly tells us, why Jewett and the Heroína were in the Falklands - simply because of the sore state of the ship, which is precisely what Jewett tells in his report.
The islands, Noise tries to make much of, are named in the report (they are mentioned four times) are the Cap Verde islands: “seek the necessary supplies of water and repairs in some one of the Cape Verd Islands for which we accordingly proceeded”.
“on reaching the coast of Brazil, should the provisions, and state of the ship permit, to remain on that station as long as possible, and accordingly made the best of our way for the Islands”
Jan 12th, 2017 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse -2The coast of Brazil is nowhere near Cape Verde...
...and I'm pretty sure the word made was probably make..
If they were in the Falklands because of the sore state of the ship...it would have been shorter and quicker if the had called back at the Buenos Aires...because they would pass by it if...“on reaching the coast of Brazil, should the provisions, and state of the ship permit, to remain on that station as long as possible” I assume station means direction...ie hugging the coast of Brazil...
Can't you understand anything you read...?
Obviously because you don't want to..
...and where was the “ultimate destination”..?
...and for fcuks sake if he is reporting to the Governor of Buenos Aires...do you think he was commissioned by the Duke of Wellington...D'oh!
Ha ha ha, stinkvoice
Jan 12th, 2017 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...and for fcuks sake if he is reporting to the Governor of Buenos Aires...do you think he was commissioned by the Duke of Wellington...D'oh!”
You're killing me!
Do you mouth the words as you write, or say them out loud just to savour them...?
Perhaps you add facial expressions as you expound and look in the mirror as you type, for full enjoyment... !!!
“ huh, do ya? Do ya, huh???”
Really, I can just imagine you.
Other solitary old folks have hobbies, like trains.
Just sayin'... :-D
Ya mean like you with your vintage car club...
Jan 12th, 2017 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse -2Your anorak, your flask and your boring dialogue...projecting again...?
Lame response, wee man “voice”.
Jan 12th, 2017 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse +1Anoraks and flasks, sure... :-D
I don't know what's more disturbing, that you are so obsessed with others that you keep personal portfolios on each of them,
or
that you don't think it's more than a little creepy to do so.
LOL...
I mean, ja ja ja...
Unlike you old folks I have a very good memory, some would describe it as almost photographic...no need for a portfolio...
Jan 12th, 2017 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse -4Works well for spotting multiple account Trolls...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 12th, 2017 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse +4“ have a very good memory, …multiple account Trolls…” I guess you would need one firstly to manage your multiple accounts. Secondly, to keep up with your totally unsuported inventions you try to foist off as truth. Or arguments to the ICJ that are later withdrawn, as fraudulent determinations by that body.
Avoice of Think
Jan 12th, 2017 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse +1“Unlike you old folks I have a very good memory, some would describe it as almost photographic”
but how would others describe it?
It's a bit like “ChrisR” recalling Elaine's pats - some things are 'exaggerated' or invented, or omitted where convenient.
Terry,
Avoiceofthink neglects to mention he was butting in on a conversation I had with Capt Poppy regarding visiting the US.
“voice” has never been there.
He was calling me pretentious for saying I might buy a car in San Francisco and drive it back, little realising it is very common here, even for people with a moderate income.
Somehow it led to him bragging about his motorcycle collection ...
Interestingly, he seems to have the same chip on his shoulder, the same class loathing, as “ChrisR”.
”Chris may NOT be an ageist or sulking Latino though :-)
Yawn...boring...
Jan 12th, 2017 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse -3What collection at that time I had two and an old yin...
Double figures now...thanks for giving me the opportunity to brag a little...;-))))
...and well done for diverting the subject...
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 12th, 2017 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse +2Voice 99 (Nauru v. Australia) “As a matter of law, once notification of a claim has been made, the principle of prescription simply cannot apply.”
Terence Hill May 05th, 2015 “You have just taken one of the arguments of the claimants … there is no judicial determination … having reached a settlement, the two Parties had agreed to discontinue the proceedings.” http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/?id=2. “So you are caught fraudulently misrepresenting the ICJ
http://www.haguejusticeportal.net/?id=2.
If anyone else besides Terry can understand his last post....please explain it to me...
Jan 12th, 2017 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse -2Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 13th, 2017 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse +2In the copy my machine made an error in not displaying the second URL correctly, guess the eternal battery needs replacing.
I’d hate to see evidence of your fraud improperly shown.
Voice 99 (Nauru v. Australia)“As a matter of law, once notification of a claim has been made, the principle of prescription simply cannot apply.”
Terence Hill May 05th, 2015 “You have just taken one of the arguments of the claimants representative Professor Brownlie and tried to pass it of as part of the ICJ judgement. If you check the document there is no judicial determination actually made. In fact there was no conclusion, as “On 9 September 1993, the Agents of Nauru and Australia notified the Court that, having reached a settlement, the two Parties had agreed to discontinue the proceedings. So you are caught fraudulently misrepresenting the ICJ.
http://en.mercopress.com/2015/04/29/falklands-malvinas-unasur-message-in-support-of-argentina-s-claims/comments
I quite clearly stated...
Jan 13th, 2017 - 10:54 am - Link - Report abuse -2”Blah de blah opinions...let's take some direct quotes from the ICJ website in respect to Extinctive Prescription.... ”
That argument was taken from the preliminary hearing at the ICJ...
No misrepresenting at all..
Australia realised Extinctive Prescription (their argument) would not be accepted...
Just like Britain would realise if they too tried to apply it...
Just like prescription would not work either...because a claim was notified...
So all you have is Conquered...without the Conquest...
In other words you have nothing...
Also I suppose I'd better inform you, because you will never work it out by yourself, even though it would be funny to observe...
You can only have one link per post...D'oh...;-)
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 13th, 2017 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse +2“That argument was taken from the preliminary hearing at the ICJ...No misrepresenting at all..let's take some direct quotes from the ICJ website in respect to Extinctive Prescription….Show me where ...BTW...Australia lost its case at the ICJ … As a matter of law...please tell us all when a notification of claim was made by Argentina... Just like Britain would realise if they too tried to apply it...” The evidence of which is totally lacking.
“Argentina never submitted its claim to the Court for judgment” The Falkland War : Britain versus the past in the South Atlantic by Daniel K. Gibran
Your interpretation of what you call a claim is not recognized as such, by no less a luminary as Rosalyn Higgins, the eventual President of the ICJ. She describes such actions as mere 'protests' that have no legal effect. So the truth always overcomes your attempted sophistries.
'In other words you have nothing...'
Jan 13th, 2017 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Correct Voice, we have nothing, you have nothing, Argentina has nothing....on the other hand the Islanders have everything......
I would however point out that GB's 'conquered without conquest' beats Argentinas... 'nothing'
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 13th, 2017 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse +2“In other words you have nothing” You must be speaking for yourself since I can claim the support of two past presidents of the ICJ. Rosalyn Higgins and Robert Yewdall Jennings. At least three judgements from the ICJ. In addition the following legal views of international lawyers or authors: Daniel K. Gibran, James Francis Gravelle, Oppenheim, Bin Cheng, Aditi Agarwal, H. Lauterpacht, David J. Bederman, and Gentian Zyberi
Only the ones that suit you...apparently you think the opinions of the international lawyers in the Australian case are irrelevant...
Jan 13th, 2017 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse -2That was the one that Australia couldn't win...
If Britain tried the same approach I dare say that case wouldn't help them with prescription or Extinctive Prescription...
Also the Island of Palmas case (Netherlands v. USA) Discovery was ruled out because of competing claims that could not be proved who was the first to discover...
So that leaves settlement and use... it could be said that both the Spanish and the British settlements were legal, but who had the stronger claim in 1810 (59 years of uninterrupted governance for Spain)...then who had the stronger claim in 1833...
Britain had no claim for East Falkland when it was claimed, settled and governed in the name of Buenos Aires...and was not protested for nine years by Britain...(What do you always say about silence..;-))
East Falkland
Discovery ruled out...
Settlement never happened...
Prescription irrelevant...
Extinctive prescription not supported...
Not looking too good for Britain...;-)
Voice
Jan 13th, 2017 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Britain had no claim for East Falkland when it was claimed, settled and governed in the name of Buenos Aires...and was not protested for nine years by Britain”
Settled continuously for nine years or sporadically?
There were gaps of far more than nine years, that Argentina did not protest Britain's presence on the Falkland Islands.
Voice, you may have had a case for Spain (not Argentina) if it were 1833, but it's 2017, Argentina and you have nothing.
Jan 13th, 2017 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse +3What international law are you going to retrospectively try and apply that will help you in 2017? You can argue until you are blue in the face about 1833, but it is irrelevant. People, countries, laws and rights have moved on, except apparently, you and Argentina!
Mr. Voice...
Jan 13th, 2017 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Lad..., you certainly are a resilient, tenacious, cohesive one...
Ya sure.. ya ain't Scottish...?
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 13th, 2017 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse +3“Australian case are irrelevant…” They may mean something to you, but it has no legal significance, unless the court has made a determination on the merits of such a claim at law. What you’re proposing is that any, and all claims by attorneys, is on a par with the judgements of a competent court. Which is absolutely absurd, give yourself a shake.
“Then who had the stronger claim in 1833…” The nation that operated in a treaty arrangement with another, that specifically excludes other nations.
You can persist with your lame assed sophisms. You and all your sock-puppets have been out-voted by a consensus opinion of experts. So you can scream and holler all you want.
Well that's about a wrap Mr. Think the strong arguments have become weaker and faded by the wayside in the face of the facts...
Jan 13th, 2017 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse -3Even Terry the Persistent is grasping at straws in his usual manic fashion...
Scottish....?...Hoots mon...;-))))
Voice, V0ice, Vestige, Think et al, sock-puppeteer extraordinaire
Jan 13th, 2017 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse +3Talking to yourself again when you fail to gain any traction with your bogus assertions. Even though you write under multiple persons, bullshit doesn’t get you anywhere in the end. You’re just a lonely little petunia in a sea of unassailable facts.
Mr. Voice “a lonely little petunia in a sea of unassailable facts”...?
Jan 13th, 2017 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse -3He sounds to me more as a smart, tall Thistle... in a sea of Engrish Turnips...;-)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!