MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina rejects UK protest and territorial pretensions over the Falklands
Argentina officially rejected Monday the United Kingdom’s protest against a bill which includes as Argentine territory the Falklands/Malvinas islands and other insular territories in the South Atlantic, according to a release in Buenos Aires from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment ruleswe'll take back Malvinas #sin dificultad# !!
Jan 26th, 2010 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0from the Queen and her “ worker bees ”” !!.
in your dreams ed in your dreams!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 26th, 2010 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this is more realistic than American Dreams !!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 26th, 2010 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina doesn't have any legitimate sovereign rights over the Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands to affirm anyway. No doubt Jorge and his fellow idiots will be jomping at the bit to point out otherwise. Not that their protestations actually amount to anything of substance that would back up a claim to the aformentioned UK territories.
Jan 27th, 2010 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Use of strong language and abuse here or in any other forum will not change the fact that these matters will always be dealt with by governments and, eventually the UN, and not by ordinary persons, no matter what their beliefs are. So try to be fair and kind with each other and wait until the pendulum moves to the country that holds the better right as to which is the real, not necessarily the factual, owner of such long disputed territories. Cheers.
Jan 27th, 2010 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thankfully in the UK it is “ordinary persons” who elect the government and so decide (eventually) which way the pendulum goes...
Jan 27th, 2010 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0It will and indeed has been dealt with by the ordinary person - the falkland islanders themselves. The Falklands belong to them and therefore are not Britains to give away nor Argentina's to take.
Jan 27th, 2010 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0hey ! English friends ! why do you insist to live on very cold island
Jan 27th, 2010 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0which contains England,Scotland,Wales ....
for example ; there are “200.000” Britishs in Spain as immigrants.
come to warmy places !!!!
tarzan ..UK is finished !! your British immigrants number is true .
Jan 27th, 2010 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0here is the full numbers of immigrants in Spain from below countries :
Morocco : 630.000...Romania : 610.000...Ecuador : 385.000..
Colombia : 260.000..UK : 200.000..Bulgaria : 130.000.
Italy : 128.000..China : 120.000..Peru : 110.000..Portugal : 100.000.
owner of comment 6.. we haven't elect the Australian Governor..!!!!
Jan 27th, 2010 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tetin, There is no such thing as an Australian Governor...
Jan 27th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see nothing changes, Kirschner's in trouble at the polls, they sing the Malvinas anthem to distract and it usually works.
Jan 27th, 2010 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...its useful to distract the people” Juan Domingo Perón
j.a.r... we count back for our independence...our flag ;yellow,black,green !
Jan 27th, 2010 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jupiter...isnt Argentina built up of immigrants????? You have to love Argentine hypocrocy.
Jan 27th, 2010 - 10:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't you mean Jamaica instead of Australia Tetin? Jamaica has a yellow, black and green flag but Australia does not...
Jan 28th, 2010 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0owner of comment 15 ..please remember ; UK, France , Holland ,Russia,
Jan 28th, 2010 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0USA ,Paraguay , Chile , Thailand ...all have same colours flags ..
mike..j.a.rob...chris :: you have to eat vegetables..fruits ...amply !
Jan 28th, 2010 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0this would be healthy and useful for your brains' numbness ..!!!!
they can't live as such eating beer..whisky..!!
friend J.A.Roberts is insistent on “Russia' s flag ”which has
Jan 28th, 2010 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0red-yellow colours ..
...“Argentina doesn't have any legitimate sovereign rights over the Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich islands to affirm anyway. No doubt Jorge and his fellow idiots will be jomping at the bit to point out otherwise. Not that their protestations actually amount to anything of substance that would back up a claim to the aformentioned UK territories.”...
Jan 28th, 2010 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0HEY!!!! Chris, kneel down and do something useful with your mouth!!!
oohhh I can see the cheap imitation of a historian is back. Welcome!!!
UK is going under and when this process is finished I will make a toast.
Hey Jorge .. does your constant need to display your stupidity really compensate for having nothing in life? You really are very predictable. And as to your request to perform oral sex on you...sorry mate. I don't swing that way and I sent the roses back.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Tarzan. Thanks for the concern but I eat a lot of veg and I don't drink alcohol. Perhaps if you followed your own advice.....
Jan 28th, 2010 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you cruise for homosexual sex on a news forum Jorge?
Jan 28th, 2010 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are British and have been British for longer than many parts of present day Argentina have been Argentinian. And even then you are not native to South America. You are descended from colonists who came from Spain etc. You have no rights to the Falkands nor South Georgia. Deal with it, get over it. You will be a lot happier and, as an added bonus, you won't continue to be thought of as the world wide laughing stock you are now.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0...“Why do you cruise for homosexual sex on a news forum Jorge?”...
Jan 28th, 2010 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0This estupid call me an idiot so I think he can do something useful instead of talking crap. He said I had nothing in life, without even knowing a bit about me.
IF ANYONE OF YOU INSULT ME, DO NOT EXPECT ME TO RESPECT YOU, OK???????
dave syas...“The Falklands are British and have been British for longer than many parts of present day Argentina have been Argentinian.”...
CRAP! Despite of being there for many years you are still a colony, a bunch of pirates. Malvinas were never british and will never be.
...“You have no rights to the Falkands nor South Georgia. Deal with it, get over it.”...
Bullshit! Keep dreaming. Look at the sky, It will be a constant reminder of the argentine sovereignty over Malvinas.
...“You will be a lot happier and, as an added bonus, you won't continue to be thought of as the world wide laughing stock you are now.”...
British media laughs at islanders, not at Argentina. Britain has a lot of problems to be worried about argentine legislation. Malvinas is one of its problems. Every action Argentina takes, Islanders go to Europe to cry to their masters.
I WILL REPEAT IT AGAIN......DON'T INSULT ME IF YOU WANT ME TO RESPECT YOU!
tarzan ; this is not “ numbness ” ..just their “ training style ” !
Jan 28th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sleek..not open mind..vulgar ambition...hypocritical..
for example ; at “ Oxford ” there are <3> kinds of educations ..
<1> for elite kids ,.<2>for ordinary kids,.<3>for foreign students..!
what does it means ? very simple..lectures' kinds are :
<1> how to exploit ,sweat the World !
<2>implicitly obedience ! ......<3> collaboration !
Jorge, we do not go crying to Europe every time big bad Argentina does something you know! All UK does is provide national defence to its people-same as in Uk and other british places, but because of Argentina,s aggressive position that defence here is at a fairly high level. Subsides - please we do not receive - nor for many many many decades - have we received subsidies from the UK! We have been financially independent from UK Government for decades(apart from defense).
Jan 28th, 2010 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge dont insult others and we might respect you, and if you came up with valid arguements with facts, and not fantasy or fairytales, we might actually listen to what you hve to say. But all I can see coming from your mouth is crap. I dont feel the need to argue against bitter and poorly educated Argentines as I know they are ill informed and are just being distracted from their internal governance issues. But when you demand respect when you have asked someone to get on their knees for you...it just gives me the impression that you are an idiot, and no one should bother reading any of your posts.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Tarzan, you can't eat beer of whiskey... you drink it. I will give you a little tip, I think the Argentine public need to stop easting the bullshit they get from their political leaders, it is becoming embarrassing for you! Sort out your own country before you start demanding for what isn't yours.
Duran ! ..OK...thanks..regretfully their educations aren't honesty !
Jan 28th, 2010 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chris ! ..you eat fruits amply too..well done..
Mike ! ..don' eat coffee either.. you mean that “”..eating the bullshits..“”
not “” easting the bullshits “” their meanings are different ..
islander, i did read many times mike summers crying because of argentine refusal to talk about fisheries and lan flights.~~~ mike you should read all comments. chris insulted me first. i am not poorly educated, if you knew me, you would swallow your own words. you like to believe we are distracted with this issue, you should take a look to the argentine media and meet the reality. you will see what the hot issues are at this moment, so stop subestimating our inteligence.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mike, i forgot, you are the one ill informed here. do not read my comments if you don't like them. algun dia se dara vuelta la historia entre latinoamerica y europa como cuando peron les enviaba comida a los muertos de hambre.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ahhh my mistake. i did mean eating. but you cant eat coffee either...you drink it? but you do eat a lot of crap from your govenrment. its quite pathetic really.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine President: oh no, there is internal problem, lets not sort it out and talk more about the falklands. the public will love it, and we can continue to be a dysfunctional nation and i can continue to steal.
Jorge, if you dont like other peoples posts dont read them either. Why do Argentines have a rule for themselves and a completely different rule for others?
You give me facts and not pirate insults and then i will stop underestimating you. All i read is “we will have you one day because it is our born right” blah blah blah. No facts, just whinging. The fact is we our Birtish because we choose. We are given the right by the UN to choose. Fact. Seriously get over it and sort out your own government. Look to ours for inspiration...corruption free!
Jan 28th, 2010 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are talking crap again. please, take a look to the argentine media and see it by yourself. you are not on the agenda. there are plenty of more important issues here. we presented many facts here during 2009 that i won't repeat just for you. it is not our fault you are late. i don't like your comments but i've never insulted you.
Jan 28th, 2010 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the 1833 acts were pirate acts. that is a fact. let's call things by their names. until now, ISLANDER is the only islander/british person who did not insult me despite of not agreeing whit me, why don't you imitate him?
Jan 28th, 2010 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0come back nicolas. he is good for entertaining hawkie.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 12:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge said: “the 1833 acts were pirate acts”
Jan 29th, 2010 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0And your evidence for this? Sorry Jorge, that's just another bit of Argentine government propaganda...
you ..poor Malvinas islanders have felt yourself to whom bound to
Jan 29th, 2010 - 02:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Scotland.?.Wales.?.England .?..by now..
look at opposite shore..there are your cognates have Wales origin !
they are living (patagonia) very blissful !!combine with them
under the noble (blue blood) Argentine Flag...!!!!!!!
friend J.A.Roberts still insist on Russia Flag is “red-yellow”.!?
Jan 29th, 2010 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well Jorges - it seems that I have touched a nerve and my comments about you seem, from your reaction, to have a more than a little truth to them. You are the one who insults people - you start the insults, as you did with me on another page last year, but you just don't seem to be able to take what you dish out. I am prepared to discuss things reasonably with anyone prepared to talk reasonably but you just jump in and insult people - you offer nothing of substance at all and then cry like a baby if you get a little back in way of insult. You see Jorge - if you act like a child you will be treated like a child.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now you say “Look at the sky, It will be a constant reminder of the argentine sovereignty over Malvinas.” How so? You share the same sky as Chile. Does that mean that Chile holds 'sovereignty' over Argentina? Of course not.
Duran - you mention the descendents of Welsh people who live blissfully in Patagonia under the Argentian flag - that is perhaps true BUT they are expressing their right to choose. The people of the Falklands are expressing their right to choose to live under the British Flag and reject the offer of living under an Argentinian flag.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 03:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Choice is something that, many years ago, the people from Spain who colonised, what is now, Argentina made when they decided to excercise a choice to cease living under the Spanish flag and live under the flag of the United Provinces and later Argentina. The people of the Falklands are only making a choice as to which flag to live under as you did as a people when you rejected Spain. Why are you seeking to deny them the same right to choose that you made? If it was good enough for you why isn't it good enough for the people of the Falklands? Please answer.
oh i see someone is missing nicholas. it must be his girlfriend. jason archibald roberts, i have shown you plenty of evidence. do not make me repeat that again. i am writing from my cell phone and it is too dificult. do you really believe russian flag is red-yellow? ROFL
Jan 29th, 2010 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - the only acts of piracy that took place in 1833 on the Falkland Islands were committed by those from the United Provinces who tried to claim soveriegnty over something that wasn't theirs. Vernet knew that the Falklands were British and that is why he sought PERMISSION from Britain to set up the settlement. He then betrayed the trust that Britain had shown him by his actions. All Britain did was carry out a police action. And, whilst Vernet and his cohorts were ordered to leave, many of the settlers were encouraged to stay. Argentina flies in the face of reason and the evidence when it says that Britain expelled all the settlers. Even though Britain was within her rights to expell them she didn't. The proof of this is written on the gravestones over the burial grounds of the Falklands and in the writings of Charles Darwin. Facts are terribly pesky things ya know;-)
Jan 29th, 2010 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorges - I see that yet again you fail to supply the evidence as requested and instead offer only insults. You are indeed and idiot with nothing in life - all the evidence one needs to arrive at the same conclusion that I have can be found within your posts.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 04:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you had any sense you would know that you best course of action - to stop looking stupid - would be to change your ways. I am going to set you a challenge. See if you can add something of value to the debate and stop insulting people and you will, I am sure, be given another chance and attitudes towards you and opinions of you would change for the better. Are you willing to accept that challenge?
chris, may be i can answer that. there many british and british descendents living in argentina. especially in my province santa cruz but they did not chose to live under argentine flag. they had no choice. they respected our sovereignty. something you should have done in malvinas. finally i have to tell you my countrys name is still united provinces of river plate according to our constitution. just for you to know.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 04:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - Britain doesn't acknowledge that Argentina has any claim to soveriegnty over the Falklands nor South Georgia etc - and for many good and legal reasons. We therefore had no need to respect Argentina's claim to the Falklands as it has none. It is in fact, and by war in the 1980's, Argentina who has not respected Britains rightful soveriengty over the Falklands or South Georgia. If a British citizen came to live in Argentina then they should respect Argentinian laws etc - just as an Argentinian should do in British territory.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 04:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I mention the United Provinces as that was the name used prior to the use of Argentina. United Provinces is the term used in history books when referring to that period in which it was used.
You are saying i am the one who insult but you are still calling me idiot and stupid. and now you are also a liar. when did i insult you in another page? what page? common tell me and i will publicly apologize. you had no rigths over malvinas. any rigth you could have had were finished with san lorenzo treaty and the next friendship treaty uk-spain. we publicly claimed malvinas in 1820 and uk recognized our independence not saying a word about our claim. FACT. you are the child who escape the debate saying we are adoctrinated, distracted and propaganda eaters. i have a challenge for you. reply me without calling me idiot or stupid. could you do that!
Jan 29th, 2010 - 04:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK is finished ! you ! Malvinas habitants..be ready to the new
Jan 29th, 2010 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0noble , seated , confident ,featured Argentine Citizenship !!
Chris' s last ,vain flutters ....!!!!!!!!!!!!
Jan 29th, 2010 - 05:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well Jorge - I thought, based upon your previous post, that you had turned over a new leaf. Seems that is not the case. You insult everyone Jorge. All anyone needs do is look back at your other posts to see that I am right about you - and it's not just me who holds that view of you.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong also with regard to your conclusions as to the San Lorenzo Treaty recognising Argentinean soveriegnty of the falklands. If Britain had no right of title to the Falklands why did Vernet seek permission from Britain? Why not seek permission from Argentina if they held title? He didn't because he knew that Britain held title to the Falkands. QED.
Let us play devils advocate here. Let us say - just for arguments sake only as it isn't true - that Argentina did have title over the Falklands. Ok. Britain then decides it wants the Islands and takes them by force. What is wrong with that I ask. Surely you cannot complain - after all Spain took the land you now live on by force from its inhabitants. And, perhaps more importantly for this hypothetical argument, Argentina took by force the land to the South of its original border in its near genocidal Conquest of the Desert. So if it is OK for you to take land by force why not Britain? Of course all this is hypothetical as Argentina had never had legal title over the Falklands and Britain hasn't ever recognised it as having title.
See, I didn't call you an idiot. I have no further need to. The Jury has given its verdict.
I'm conected now.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 06:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chris, if you insist that I'm insulting when I'm clearly not, I will have to start doing it just to make you don't seem like a liar.
I've never said San Lorenzo treaty recognized argentine sovereignty, it only shows that you had no rights over malvinas. You were prohibited to settle down in any part of southamerica and its adjacent islands.
As I said before, UK recognized our independence in 1825 without saying a word about our claim wich was made in 1820.
May be I will have to make the “copy-paste” as J.A. Roberts likes to call it.
by the way, I'm still waiting for you to tell me in what page I insulted you.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 06:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Duque of Wellington, prime minister in 1834: “I've been researching all the papers regarding falklands. I haven't found out that we had had titles of sovereignty over those islands.”
Jan 29th, 2010 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sidney Spicer, Chief of american department of foreign office in 1910: “...The attitude of argentine goverment is not enterely unjustified and our actions have been somewhat despotic”.
Sir Malcolm A. Robertson, british ambassador in Buenos Aires in 1928: “Argentine claims over falklands are not without fundaments”, and he insisted that “The british case is not good enough to face a public controversy”.
George Fitzmaurice, legal coincillor of foreign office in 1936: “Our case is a little fragile” and he advised what finally was done: “Sitting down over the islands, avoiding disccussing to let the drop the case”.
John Troutbeck, officer of foreign office in 1936: “...our taking over of falklands was so arbitrary that we can't explain our position without showing ourselves as international thieves”.
YES J.A. Roberts I know you are going to say “who cares what they have said” but those were british officials, not common citizens like you or me.
Jorge - you do know that it is just as easy to quote Argentineans who say that Britain has the stronger claim. At the end of the day Britain offered Argentina the chance to sort this out at the ICJ on several occassions. Argentina refused to take Britain up on its offer. I wonder why - could iy have been because Argentina knew that it had no case in law?
Jan 29th, 2010 - 06:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - Saying that we recognised your independence has NOTHING to do with saying that we agreed that the Falklands are Argentinian. It is a really desperate act on your part to say that, just because we didn't mention the Falklands, that doesn't mean we accepted that they were included. We didn't mention New Zealand, Brazil and so many other countries when we recognised Argentinean independence, that doesn't mean that, by not doing so, we were saying that those lands were now Argentinean.
Jan 29th, 2010 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands, South Georgia etc are British and have been for some time. In fact - the Falklands have been British for longer than the land you took in the Conquest of the Desert has been Argentinean. Are you going to give that back - based upon your logic you should.
The facts of the matter are - the Falkland Islanders have no wish to have the Islands transfered to Argentina. If the islanders wished for Britain to transfer title to Argentina we would do so. But they don't want us to.
They want to remain British. The question Argentina has to ask of themselves is this - What can Argentina offer the islanders that would cause them to change their minds and think that they would be better off under the Argentinean flag rather than the British flag. Instead of offering anything Argentina simply threatens and bullies them.
As to what page you insulted me, and others, you have done so over so many pages in Mercopress. I haven't the time to try and search them all and you are relying upon that. I can't be bothered. They were only brought up because of your cry of foulplay on this page.
See - I didn't call you an idiot.;-))))))
...“you do know that it is just as easy to quote Argentineans who say that Britain has the stronger claim”...
Jan 29th, 2010 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0well do it!
...“At the end of the day Britain offered Argentina the chance to sort this out at the ICJ on several occassions”...
Bullshit! Those 3 offers were about “falkland dependencies” and not “falkland islands”. Try another thing!
...“Saying that we recognised your independence has NOTHING to do with saying that we agreed that the Falklands are Argentinian”...
It has everything to do.
...“It is a really desperate act on your part to say that, just because we didn't mention the Falklands, that doesn't mean we accepted that they were included”...
By omition you accepted it. Sorry it is said.
...“the Falklands have been British for longer than the land you took in the Conquest of the Desert has been Argentinean”...
They were never british and the conquest of desert has nothing to do with Malvinas. Put it aside!
...“Are you going to give that back - based upon your logic you should. ”...
Why don't you come to Neuquen and ask Mapuches about what they think? You might get surprised!
...“the Falkland Islanders have no wish to have the Islands transfered to Argentina”...
IRRELEVANT!
...“They want to remain British”...
IRRELEVANT!
...“What can Argentina offer the islanders that would cause them to change their minds and think that they would be better off under the Argentinean flag rather than the British flag”...
This is not a game of convinving people. They will be well off Under argentine flag, but it's up to them to put their minds to work and understand this. After all, they have been living isolated from the world for many many years and that is preventing them to think in a open-minded way.
We don't have to convince them. They have to convince themselves.
...“As to what page you insulted me, and others, you have done so over so many pages in Mercopress. I haven't the time to try and search them all and you are relying upon that. I can't be bothered. They were only brought up because of your cry of foulplay on this page”...
mmmmm.....it seems like that page you mention does not exist!. It is obvious since I did not disccuss with any british about Malvinas in any other page than this one. JAKE MATE!
You failed!
Jorge said: “YES J.A. Roberts I know you are going to say ”who cares what they have said“ but those were british officials, not common citizens like you or me.”
Jan 29th, 2010 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Once again, these quotations do not represent government policy. They might be british (actually one of them is American) officials but it is still their personal opinion. And visa versa quoting Argentine officials who support British sovereignty would be just as pointless.
Jorge said: “Bullshit!”
Such language is not necessary. Not everyone knows all the facts - here is your opportunity to put Chris right.
Jorge said: “I've never said San Lorenzo treaty recognized argentine sovereignty, it only shows that you had no rights over malvinas. You were prohibited to settle down in any part of southamerica and its adjacent islands. ”
Jorge, have you forgotten about the secret article? Shall I remind you what it says: “Since by article 6 of the present convention it has been stipulated, respecting the eastern and western coasts of South America, that the respective subjects shall not in the future form any establishment on the parts of these coasts situated to the south of the parts of the said coasts actually occupied by Spain, it is agreed and declared by the present article that this stipulation shall remain in force only so long as no establishment shall have been formed by the subjects of any other power on the coasts in question. This secret article shall have the same force as if it were inserted in the convention.”
And Article 6 to which the secret article refers:
“It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coasts of South America and the islands adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the coast situated to the south of the parts of the same coast and of the islands adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coasts and islands so situated for objects connected with their fishery and of erecting thereon huts and other temporary structures serving only those objects.”
This treaty was between Britain and Spain. It had nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina did not “inherit” any rights from this treaty, for that to have happened Spain would have recognised them (with Britain's agreement) in a specific act. Spain never did this.
Jorge said: “They were never british and the conquest of desert has nothing to do with Malvinas”
Actually Britain had a claim to the Falklands long before Argentina even existed, and the Conquest of the Desert just highlights the flaws in your argument and logic - not surprising you want us to “Put it aside!”
Jorge said: “By omition you accepted it. Sorry it is said.”
- There are many more examples where Argentina acquiesced in British sovereignty by omission. Would you like me to list them?
Jorge said: ...“the Falkland Islanders have no wish to have the Islands transfered to Argentina”... IRRELEVANT! ...“They want to remain British”... IRRELEVANT!
- Sorry Jorge, but this is where your Argentine claim hits a brick wall. Everyone knows the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination under international law. So what they want is VERY RELEVANT!
Jorge said: “This is not a game of convinving people.”
- Actually, it is. Argentina wants something from the Falkland Islanders and they need absolutely NOTHING from Argentina! I think it is Argentina who needs to do a bit of convincing.
Jorge said: “they have been living isolated from the world for many many years” Oh really? What with direct flights to the UK for almost 30 years now. Hardly isolated.
friend ( J.A.R) Jason Archibald Roberts ..
Jan 29th, 2010 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you found “ red-yellow” Russia flag ?
friend Jason ( J.A.R) walk around at the artifact markets
Jan 30th, 2010 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0to find out “ red / yellow ” Russian flag !
CHRIS AND J.A ROBERTS, i respect your opinions what i dont agree with you in some aspects, we can have diferent arguments, that's why we must debate about it.
Jan 30th, 2010 - 05:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think that both arguments are solid, and i hold too that both nations (arg and the u.k) made big mistakes.
About the san lorenzo treaty, of course i know that it was signed by spain and the bretain during colonial times, the main reasons of that treaty were the hunting, and avoiding a war betwen spain and the u.k.
In that treaty the sovereignty was not on discution, it allowed british sailors to stablish on the islands, to form settlements, buil huts etc.
In 1767, spain took possetion of the french settlement and kept a garrison for 44 years, in that time the islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata, that's why we say that we inherited the islands from spain.
I dont remember exactly when was signed the s. lorenzo treaty, the point is that bretain left it's garrison in port egmont in 1774, i think it was a big mistake by bretain.
About what happened in 1833, in some aspects it was illigal, because notwithstanding, we must recognize that the u.k. had right to stablish on the islands, but they had no right to force the argentine authoritis to leave the islands, it's true that there was a prior claim by bretain, but during 59years they didnt exercise any control on the islands, may be after all that time, bretain had lost it's right on the malvinas-falklands, beside when the may revolution started in 1810, the spanish garrison left the islands, and during more tham 20 years there was not any resident population, there were just sporadic british and american settlements.
May be it's true the fact that argentina didn't claim since 1849 and during many years, but you should take into account that for more tham 80 years we had a very big economic dependence with the u.k., because of the loan got by rivadavia's goverment, the british managed our economy during plenty of years, as you can see, argentina wasen't in condition to claim to bretain very much, i know J .A. that you dont agree in this aspect, in fact juan manuel de rosas offered the british that he would drop on the sovereign claim, if they forgived the loan, bretain said that the islands were british, and there was nothing to discuss with buenos aires, as you can see the economic situation are always relevant, specially in this dispute.
On the other hand, i have many doubts about the soposed right to self determination of the islanders, because a few years before the war, a representant of the u.k on foreign affairs, told the islanders that hes country was prepared to transfer the sovereignty to argentina, if the war woulden't have happened, the islanders would be argentine now, i wonder why did bretain ignore the wish of the islands population, if it soposes that they have right to self determination?.
I only hope that once and for all, argentina, the u.k. and f. i. g set and talk about the sovereignty dispute, and find a fair solution for all of us, i have allways been in favor of including the islanders into the negociation, and the f.i.g. must be disposed to discuss about the sovereign dispute, with the actual situation, i dont think we are going to find a solution neather in a long time, i dont agree with the posture of both sides.
I hope too i can find a expert in international low, because i have plenty of doubts about this dispue, i have studyed this conflict all my life, but the are many questions that i still dont know, and an expert knows much more tham all of us.
Axel
Jan 30th, 2010 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the virreynato del rio de la plata, that's why we say that we inherited the islands from spain.”
- Firstly the Viceroyalty also included Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia, and parts of Chile and Peru. By your logic these countries should also have an equal claim to the Falklands. Argentina therefore does not have a unitary claim. Secondly Spain continued to claim the Falklands after 1810 so I don't see how Argentina “inherited” them.
“About what happened in 1833, in some aspects it was illigal...”
- On what basis?
“they had no right to force the argentine authoritis to leave the islands”
- On what basis?
“the spanish garrison left the islands, and during more tham 20 years there was not any resident population, there were just sporadic british and american settlements.”
- This fact certainly did not give Argentina any rights.
“juan manuel de rosas offered the british that he would drop on the sovereign claim, if they forgived the loan, bretain said that the islands were british, and there was nothing to discuss with buenos aires, as you can see the economic situation are always relevant, specially in this dispute.”
- This is a nice, romantic excuse for Argentina not pressing a claim with the UK, but there is no way you can prove it one way or the other. It's like blaming the 1982 invasion on the flagging support in the country for the Junta. It's not an argument. Sorry, I don't buy this.
“i have many doubts about the soposed right to self determination of the islanders”
- This right is enshrined in international law.
“because a few years before the war, a representant of the u.k on foreign affairs, told the islanders that hes country was prepared to transfer the sovereignty to argentina”
- Yes, but only with the Islanders' consent and they said NO.
“i wonder why did bretain ignore the wish of the islands population”
- It did not.
Good luck with finding all the answers. If you believe in negotiations including the Islanders why do you not write to your representatives in the congress and make this suggestion. Surely if enough Argentines do this then policy might change? Is that not how democracy works?
Jorge wrote “mmmmm.....it seems like that page you mention does not exist!. It is obvious since I did not disccuss with any british about Malvinas in any other page than this one. JAKE MATE! You failed!”
Jan 31st, 2010 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you claiming that you have never posted on any Mercopress news item, about the Falklands, apart from this one headed “Argentina rejects UK protest and territorial pretensions over the Falklands” - is that what you are claiming? Are you not the same Jorge who has posted many times on previous Mercopress news items regarding the Falklands? Because I have certainly seen the name Jorge several times before and have interacted with posts made by said name. Are you not one and the same? You certainly express the same views, use the same 'logic' and write in the same style as the other Jorge.
It is very odd because on this very page - your first post on it (post#19) - you write, in response to my post on this page (The first post I made on this page)
Jorge wrote - “oohhh I can see the cheap imitation of a historian is back. Welcome!!!”
Here you are clearly, sarcastically I admit, welcoming me *BACK*!!! Why would you welcome back, to the Mercopress forums, someone you had no prior knowledge of and had NEVER discussed anything with before? All very odd.
Duran, good answer!
Feb 01st, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Usted debe conseguir una vida! Read our history, we are all immigrants from Galicia, Italy etc .. We were not even a country when people were inhabiting the Falklands. Argentina did not exist, when we decided to shoot and kill the indiginous people of South America, chopping their ears off for a small bounty to prove the kill. Now Argentina does exist we can't even run your own corrupt country!
Feb 01st, 2010 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islanders are very happy people, getting on with life and making lots of close friends in Chile, Uruguay and Brazil. The economy is booming and us idiots do not realise how much the world resents our childish games. Through our ingnorance we are missing out on great love and friendship with the British people. We can learn so much from them. ¡Nuestra pérdida!
british friends ,, here is Mercopress ,is a Latin America press..
Feb 01st, 2010 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0English is not our native language ..in person it is my third language ..
i see that you are confusing to adapt us and Latin America .
here is Latin America..all we are from Europa origin..but
we can not behave like Europeans ....if you are insist on Europeanness
you would go back there ....
Duran, good answer! )
Feb 01st, 2010 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0.....“Jorge, have you forgotten about the secret article? ”.....
Feb 01st, 2010 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jason Archibald Roberts,
I have talked to you about the article 6 before, do you remember??? Surely you do. It was 2 weeks ago!
The article 6 talked about a third power wich does not exist here. Argentina continued the ruling from Buenos Aires just like spaniards did before. There is no doubt there.
You had no rights over Malvinas and the administration does not give you any of them.
.....“This treaty was between Britain and Spain. It had nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina did not ”inherit” any rights from this treaty, for that to have happened Spain would have recognised them (with Britain's agreement) in a specific act. Spain never did this.”.....
Uffff the same old story.
We took our rights by force. We governed B.A, Tucuman, Mendoza without the consent of Spain and malvinas was the same. UK recognized our independence in 1825 without consulting Spain. Why they would have???
We publicly claimed Malvinas early in 1820. You weren't there and you made no reference to any of our terretories in 1825 knowing that we had a claim over the islands. Argentines settled there later and UK again said nothing about that.
It is very simple. If Argentina had had a strong force in Malvinas in 1833, we wouldn't have been talking here know. Argentina would have expelled you like it did in 1806 and 1807 (proven track record of invations).
.....“Actually Britain had a claim to the Falklands long before Argentina even existed, and the Conquest of the Desert just highlights the flaws in your argument and logic - not surprising you want us to ”Put it aside!“”.....
uffff I told you many times that any claim you could have had was buried with San Lorenzo Treaty and Friendship Treaty later between UK and Spain.
You should not talk about the conquest of desert after what you did in Australia, USA, Canada, India, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc. Shame on you!
.....“- There are many more examples where Argentina acquiesced in British sovereignty by omission. Would you like me to list them?”.....
Before 1820 when Argentina claimed them??? I would like to read about that. Seriously!
- Sorry Jorge, but this is where your Argentine claim hits a brick wall. Everyone knows the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination under international law. So what they want is VERY RELEVANT!”.....
Self-determination is for colonized people, not for colonizers.
Argentina has the right of territorial integrity also UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!
Argentina must respect islander's interests, not their wishes.
I wish Uruguay were part of Argentina. Unfortunaly, it is not. They are an independent country and we respect that.
Islanders wish to be British. Unfortunaly (for them), they inhabit argentine terretorie.
So, Islander's wishes are IRRELEVANT! y punto. (as you said once)
.....“Argentina wants something from the Falkland Islanders and they need absolutely NOTHING from Argentina! I think it is Argentina who needs to do a bit of convincing.”.....
Wrong!!!!!! Argentina wants NOTHING from islanders. Argentina wants the islands, not the islanders.
If they don't want anything from Argentina, why do they cry about the argentine refusal to talk about fisheries and LAN flights???
.....“What with direct flights to the UK for almost 30 years now. Hardly isolated. ”.....
ROFL. You must be very proud of having only one flight to Europe and one flight to South America. More over, One flight that you only have because of a contract with the UK defence ministery.
Europe recognized you the status of “UK overseas terretorie” and you have less contact with the outside wolrd than Taiwan wich is not recognized as a country and it is not an overseas terretorie of any. Although, they recently signed an agreement with China for direct flights. Yeah, they wanted flights from and to China, the country wich claims sovereignty over that small island.
Jason Archibald Roberts, you have said many times “Argentina lost any moral right to the falklands with the war”, now tell me, who the h... are you to judge the morality of a country??? YOU!!!!!! a country wich made a mess in this world!
.....“Are you claiming that you have never posted on any Mercopress news item, about the Falklands, apart from this one headed ”Argentina rejects UK protest and territorial pretensions over the Falklands“ - is that what you are claiming?”.....
Feb 01st, 2010 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO, I have been posting in many articles from Mercopress.
You said I insulted you in another page! I could not do that since the only page I even discuss with islanders/british is Mercopress. I posted opinions in others like facebook or topix, but I didn't insult anyone there. So, your point is.....?
I think I'm the only jorge posting here.
.....”you write, in response to my post on this page (The first post I made on this page)
Jorge wrote - “oohhh I can see the cheap imitation of a historian is back. Welcome!!!”“.....
LOL. Chris, you are giving yourself the importance you don't have. I was not talking about you. I don't even consider you as a ”cheap imitation of a historian“. That message was for another person.
.....”Here you are clearly, sarcastically I admit, welcoming me *BACK*!!! Why would you welcome back, to the Mercopress forums, someone you had no prior knowledge of and had NEVER discussed anything with before? All very odd.”.....
That's because I was not talking about you. I was talking about someone who I accussed many times of distortioning argentine history. Someone who always treats us as victims of goverment's distractions. I won't tell you his name!!!!
Jorge
Feb 01st, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I have talked to you about the article 6 before, do you remember???...
The article 6 talked about a third power wich does not exist here.... Argentina continued the ruling from Buenos Aires just like spaniards did before. There is no doubt there.”
Yes I remember Jorge, but it seems your powers of logic have failed you again. Let me remind you: The treaty was between Britain and Spain in other words Argentina was not party to the treaty. Argentina does not equal Spain. Argentina is and independent country, legally separate from Spain. So I'm sorry Jorge, Argentina is a third power for the purposes of the treaty. No country in the history of the world has taken or even “inherited” the terms of a treaty from another country using force.
“We publicly claimed Malvinas early in 1820”
- Yes, this invalidated Article 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention, opening the way for Britain to settle the Falklands.
You weren't there and you made no reference to any of our terretories in 1825 knowing that we had a claim over the islands.
- Yes, the Navigation treaty made no mention of the extent of Argentine territory, so it works both ways. Argentina knew at that time that the UK had a claim... There were no Argentines on the Islands between mid 1824 and 1826 anyway, so why would Britain mention them?
“It is very simple. If Argentina had had a strong force in Malvinas in 1833, we wouldn't have been talking here know.”
- That's how things worked in those days Jorge, I have no doubt this might have happened. But it didn't. Britain had the stronger claim then, and Britain had the stronger force.
uffff I told you many times that any claim you could have had was buried with San Lorenzo Treaty and Friendship Treaty later between UK and Spain.
- Once again. The secret article puts paid to this fanciful little idea. In fact the secret article did the opposite of bury the British claim. It kept it very much alive.
You should not talk about the conquest of desert after what you did in Australia, USA, Canada, India, Pakistan, etc, etc, etc. Shame on you!
- Well then stop bleating about the use of force to remove the Argentine garrison in 1833, especially after what you did in the Conquest of the Desert.
.....“- There are many more examples where Argentina acquiesced in British sovereignty by omission. Would you like me to list them?”.....
<<Before 1820 when Argentina claimed them??? I would like to read about that. Seriously!>>
No, I meant after 1825 when Britain began formal relations with the Junta in Buenos Aires. Please see above re Nootka Sound Conv. Your 1820 claim opened the way for Britain to reactivate her claim to the Falklands.
“Self-determination is for colonized people, not for colonizers.”
Where exactly in all the UN resolutions does it say this?
Argentina has the right of territorial integrity also UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW!!!
I think you refer to point 6 of the declaration in UN Res 1514 (1960). It refers to the (future) disruption of a territory undergoing decolonisation. Argentina is not was not then and is not now undergoing decolonisation so it does not apply. Anyway, if one of the Argentine provinces decided to secede, under international law there are certain situations were this would be possible. So your right to territorial integrity is not unlimited.
I wish Uruguay were part of Argentina. Unfortunaly, it is not. They are an independent country and we respect that.
- Yes and you wish the Falklands were part of Argentina but unfortunately they are not.
Islanders wish to be British. Unfortunaly (for them), they inhabit argentine terretorie.
Yes, the Islanders do wish to remain British for the time being and fortunately for them the reality is they inhabit British territory. Does the Argentine flag fly over Stanley?
Wrong!!!!!! Argentina wants NOTHING from islanders. Argentina wants the islands, not the islanders.
- Well the Islanders have the islands, so sorry, Argentina does want something from the Islanders...
If they don't want anything from Argentina, why do they cry about the argentine refusal to talk about fisheries and LAN flights???
- Actually they cry about Argentina's broken promises. Agreeing to flights and joint fisheries management and then tearing up the agreements. The Islanders can live without direct contact with Argentina and as they have shown. They just get on with life.
“ROFL. You must be very proud of having only one flight to Europe and one flight to South America.”
- So how many Argentine poblachos of 3000 have more than two flights? Actually how many Argentina poblachos even have and airport? Now you see how ridiculous your argument is. The Falklands have the number of flights they need, why should they have more if they don't want them.
Europe recognized you the status of “UK overseas terretorie” and you have less contact with the outside wolrd than Taiwan wich is not recognized as a country and it is not an overseas terretorie of any
- Taiwan is and island of 23 million people. I don't think your comparison makes any sense.
Jason Archibald Roberts, you have said many times “Argentina lost any moral right to the falklands with the war”, now tell me, who the h... are you to judge the morality of a country??? YOU!!!!!! a country wich made a mess in this world!
- I quite agree. The UK has made a mess of many things, but that does make what Argentina did in 1982 right. I repeat: Argentina lost any moral high ground it might have had when it invaded the Falklands..
Jason Archibald Roberts's last ,vain flutters too ..!!!!!!!!!!
Feb 01st, 2010 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British Foreign Ministry really thinks ( of minds) of,,,, Malvinas' independence and participation to Argentina ...becouse,
Feb 01st, 2010 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0they have compunction on Simon Bolivar's independence movements ,once had their provocations and collaborations against Spaniards.!.
Hey guys....sorry to bother you, but I noticed how heated this convo was getting...i just wanna say that...
Feb 01st, 2010 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If any of you guys are up for it, I would LOVE to have SEXX with you :P
MAKINGOUT will suffice too...oh and i'm not just some retard out of an assylum so dont get me wrong
I must admit though, I can be a BITCH/Slut but SERIOUSLY, I wanna have SEXXXX XD
Im a killer at giving blow jobs, so yea....
My facebook name is : FUCKING HOT BITCH
you'll recognize it because the profile picture is a picture of this really pretty girl (ME!) and a close up of my boobs, which are spilling out of a totally sexy designer bra that is like a cup size AA, and my cupsize is like a B or C!!! LOL its really SEXY, just like u guys ;) *wink*
I also have pictures of my bare boobs, and one of my vagina if you guys want to check it out...if your not brave enough for that, you can just look at the album with me pole dancing, or modeling in really sluty clothes/lingerie
my address is on my facebook account, so we can hook up sometime...even internet sex or sexting (sexy texting) will do
looking forward to meeting you :P
LUV U MY SEXY BITCHES!!!!
YOU R SOOO FUCKING HOT JUST LIKE MEE
now if you will excuse me, there is a guy who wants to do me waiting in my bed...
whoa, christina!!!
Feb 01st, 2010 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0boy do I want to hook up with you!
You are really sexy on Facebook!
christina ! are you british soldier. !?
Feb 01st, 2010 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.....“Argentina does not equal Spain. Argentina is and independent country, legally separate from Spain. So I'm sorry Jorge, Argentina is a third power for the purposes of the treaty. No country in the history of the world has taken or even ”inherited“ the terms of a treaty from another country using force.”....
Feb 01st, 2010 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With that idea, Argentina has no rights over Santa Fé, Cordoba, La Pampa, etc. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound???
.....“Yes, this invalidated Article 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention, opening the way for Britain to settle the Falklands.”.....
That is just your wrong interpretation.
.....“There were no Argentines on the Islands between mid 1824 and 1826 anyway, so why would Britain mention them?”.....
so what?? for many years UK had no human presence in sandwich islands and I don't know if there is some now.
.....“”Self-determination is for colonized people, not for colonizers.“
Where exactly in all the UN resolutions does it say this?”.....
Why do you think UN stated this is a very special case???
.....“Britain had the stronger claim then, and Britain had the stronger force.”.....
You know that is not true!!!
I make the correction: “Britain had the weaker claim then/now, and Britain had the stronger force.” But you know what, Future is unpredictable.
.....“The secret article puts paid to this fanciful little idea. In fact the secret article did the opposite of bury the British claim. It kept it very much alive.”.....
Another wrong interpretation or personal opinion of yours.
.....“Well then stop bleating about the use of force to remove the Argentine garrison in 1833, especially after what you did in the Conquest of the Desert.”.....
You are trying to put “jack” (el destripador) and Hitler at the same level aren't you!
.....“No, I meant after 1825 when Britain began formal relations with the Junta in Buenos Aires. Please see above re Nootka Sound Conv. Your 1820 claim opened the way for Britain to reactivate her claim to the Falklands.”.....
The “third power” as you call it, came into actions in 1810 or 1816 if you like. Argentina made first its claim in 1820 and if you had had a claim, you would have “saltado como leche hervida” (vos me entendes!) and you didn't say a word. The entire world sees you as thieves because of the kind of actions you made in 1833.
.....”I think you refer to point 6 of the declaration in UN Res 1514 (1960). It refers to the (future) disruption of a territory undergoing decolonisation. Argentina is not was not then and is not now undergoing decolonisation so it does not apply.“.....
Tell UN about that. It says ”this is a special case“ and they are not applying ”self-determination“ right to you.
.....”Yes and you wish the Falklands were part of Argentina but unfortunately they are not.“.....
You can steal my cellphone and have it, but it will still be MY cellphone.
.....”the Islanders do wish to remain British for the time being and fortunately for them the reality is they inhabit British territory.“.....
SIMPLY UNTRUE!
.....”Does the Argentine flag fly over Stanley?“.....
Typical british arrogance!
.....”Well the Islanders have the islands, so sorry, Argentina does want something from the Islanders“.....
Islanders have no the islands, they are just the excuse. The british have the islands.
.....”Actually they cry about Argentina's broken promises. Agreeing to flights and joint fisheries management and then tearing up the agreements.“.....
Broken promises????
There were not a promise for a second o third LAN flight. 1999 joint agreement promised just one monthly flight and it was never broken.
Regarding fisheries, the promise from both sides was for cooperation for management of stock and you broke it extending fishing licenses of foreign vessels for 25 years.
.....”So how many Argentine poblachos of 3000 have more than two flights? Actually how many Argentina poblachos even have and airport? Now you see how ridiculous your argument is.“.....
Not many of them. ”poblachos“ have not the entity of FIG. Poblachos do not control inmigration, EEZ, etc. ”poblachos“ are just ”poblachos“ after all and you believe yourself as a country jajaja.
Where did you get the ”poblachos“ word. That word does not exist here. I think you meant ”pueblucho“ didn't you!
.....”The Falklands have the number of flights they need, why should they have more if they don't want them.“.....
I read and heard them asking LAN for more flights, so they want them.
.....”Taiwan is and island of 23 million people. I don't think your comparison makes any sense.“.....
That is not an excuse!
.....”The UK has made a mess of many things, but that does make what Argentina did in 1982 right.“.....
I wasn't talking about 1982 actions. Why do you bring that up? I was talking about argentine claim.
.....”Argentina lost any moral high ground it might have had when it invaded the Falklands”.....
AGAIN, who the hell are you to make that judgement?
Que ganas de perder el tiempo que tienen algunos eh!
Feb 01st, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0publicitando sexo en mercopress???
Feb 01st, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jorge,
Feb 01st, 2010 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Serious question among all the nonsense. If Argentina inherited the Falklands from Spain why did Jewitt have to make a claim for them in 1820 ? These two positions are incompatible.
It is claimed also that Jewitt (the privateer) was sent purposefully to make this claim by the BsAs authorities. I have never seen any documentary evidence or traceable reference put forward to substantiate this as a fact.
There is a good document detailing Vernet's appointment in 1829 (immediately protested by the British of which there is a copy) in your National Archives but no such document detailing Jewitt's so called instructions to claim the Falklands.
Some enlightenment would be good.
.....“Serious question among all the nonsense”.....
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Personal opinion
.....“If Argentina inherited the Falklands from Spain why did Jewitt have to make a claim for them in 1820 ? These two positions are incompatible.”.....
When Neil Amstrong planted the USA flag in Moon, believe or not, in some way, he claimed sovereignty for USA. Moon wasn't part of any country, but he claimed it anyway.
Jewitt did something like that. He claimed sovereignty for Argentina. He did not need to do it for any british claim. There were not valid british claim. All south American countries claimed their current terretories by force. I don't like to use the word “inherit”. In my opinion, these things are not incompatible. Sorry for the example of USA in Moon, it is the first thing I thought.
Saludos
“With that idea, Argentina has no rights over Santa Fé, Cordoba, La Pampa, etc. Do you realize how ridiculous you sound???”
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 03:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0- not as ridiculous as you look trying to convince people that a power can “inherit” or gain by force the rights and obligations in a treaty contracted between two other powers. It has never happened in the history of the world!
“.....”Yes, this invalidated Article 6 of the Nootka Sound Convention, opening the way for Britain to settle the Falklands.“.....
That is just your wrong interpretation.”
- Perhaps you'll point out exactly how my interpretation is wrong? Please don't just leave it hanging like that.
“.....”The secret article puts paid to this fanciful little idea. In fact the secret article did the opposite of bury the British claim. It kept it very much alive.“.....
Another wrong interpretation...”
- Once again, any argument or facts to back up your “personal opinion” that I am simply wrong. I'd love to hear them.
“.....”“Self-determination is for colonized people, not for colonizers.”
Where exactly in all the UN resolutions does it say this?“.....
Why do you think UN stated this is a very special case???”
- Yes, a special case because of the sovereignty dispute. The Islanders rights are unaffected. If you know different, please point me in the right direction.
.....“the Islanders do wish to remain British for the time being and fortunately for them the reality is they inhabit British territory.”.....
SIMPLY UNTRUE!
Actually it is true and I used the following to illustrate my point:
.....“Does the Argentine flag fly over Stanley?”.....
To which the best reply you could come up with was:
“Typical british arrogance!”
I don't cry “Arrogance!” every time you shout “Malvinas Argentinas”. I think you can do better than that Jorge...
Broken promises...
“There were not a promise for a second o third LAN flight. 1999 joint agreement promised just one monthly flight and it was never broken.”
Actually the agreement did not specify how many flights LAN (or any other airline) could operate from Chile. Argentina arbitrarily made that 1 flight. So limited support for the scheduled link between Chile and FI, but not the full support promised by the Argentine governement. Promise broken
The agreement also said that both parties welcomed the possibility of flights from third countries (via Argentina if necessary), but these flights have not been so welcomed by Argentina after all... Promise broken.
“Regarding fisheries, the promise from both sides was for cooperation for management of stock and you broke it extending fishing licenses of foreign vessels for 25 years.”
- Actually there was nothing in the agreement to stop the Falklands issuing licenses (for as long as they liked) - Argentina was already issuing licences. The real truth is Argentina took offence at the Falklands issuing their own licenses because that was just another sign of Falkland self government. Co-operation promised by Argentina? Another promise broken.
The Argentine government promised to look into the toponymy in the Falklands - in the hope that modern “inventions” like Puerto Argentino could be put to bed. Another promise broken.
Argentina promised to work with the UK govt to assess the feasibility and cost of clearing (largely Argentine) mines from the Islands. Did Argentine work with the UK on this? No. Another promise broken.
“.....”The UK has made a mess of many things, but that does make what Argentina did in 1982 right.“.....
I wasn't talking about 1982 actions. Why do you bring that up? I was talking about argentine claim.”
- Shall I quote your original statement? Here it is:
“Jason Archibald Roberts, you have said many times ”Argentina lost any moral right to the falklands with the war“, now tell me, who the h... are you to judge the morality of a country??? YOU!!!!!! a country wich made a mess in this world!”
- The “war”. The only war I know about involving the Falklands happened in 1982.
“AGAIN, who the hell are you to make that judgement?”
It's just my opinion. You don't have to agree with it...
“.....”Taiwan is and island of 23 million people. I don't think your comparison makes any sense.“.....
That is not an excuse!”
I think you can come up with a better comparison Jorge, this one still makes no sense.
Poblacho/pueblucho... the beauty and breadth of the Spanish language. The word is normally “poblacho” where I live - maybe you can guess where that is...
“Not many of them. ”poblachos“ have not the entity of FIG. Poblachos do not control inmigration, EEZ, etc. ”poblachos“ are just ”poblachos“ after all and you believe yourself as a country jajaja.”
Some do Jorge, some do. There are countries with smaller populations than the Falkland Islands - and some of them do and some of them don't have airports.
“Que ganas de perder el tiempo que tienen algunos eh!”
Speak for yourself!
comment 69 !
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0.....“not as ridiculous as you look trying to convince people that a power can ”inherit“ or gain by force the rights and obligations in a treaty contracted between two other powers. It has never happened in the history of the world!”.....
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 05:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not trying to convince anyone. Didn't you realize yet I don't give a sh*t what you think???
Argentine terretories were part of Spainsh empire. We took our rights by force. Are you gonna claim us because of the article 6 of San Lorenzo Treaty?. Do I have to go to the shores and wait for you to come and claim Comodoro, Caleta ó Rada Tilly??? Try it and see!!!
.....“Perhaps you'll point out exactly how my interpretation is wrong? Please don't just leave it hanging like that.”.....
Do you remember when I asked “why UK did not take Tucuman?”, “San Lorenzo treaty made no difference between South America mainland and its adjacent islands.”, etc????
Your poor/predictable/honest answer was “UK did what it did because it suited them”. I'll keep that y punto.
.....“Once again, any argument or facts to back up your ”personal opinion“ that I am simply wrong. I'd love to hear them.”.....
Ufff not all again. Argentina was not a third power, it continued the same old ruling of Malvinas from B.A. like it did until 1811. Punto!
.....“Yes, a special case because of the sovereignty dispute. The Islanders rights are unaffected. If you know different, please point me in the right direction.”.....
If their “rights” are not affected, why UN doesn't recognize them as a nation? Why UN doesn't just throw away argentines claims? Uk has enough influence to pervert UN and does it!
.....”Actually the agreement did not specify how many flights LAN (or any other airline) could operate from Chile. Argentina arbitrarily made that 1 flight.“.....
It wasn't arbritrary. It was agreed! Not promise broken!
.....”The agreement also said that both parties welcomed the possibility of flights from third countries (via Argentina if necessary), but these flights have not been so welcomed by Argentina after all“.....
The agreement was not a open-skies policy from argentine side. The open-skies policy during 90's was just a gift for you from traitors Menem and Di Tella. It is proved it was not for the benefit of Argentina. Useless!
Again not promise broken.
.....”Actually there was nothing in the agreement to stop the Falklands issuing licenses (for as long as they liked) - Argentina was already issuing licences.“.....
Partially true, but unilateral actions modifying the situation of the Islands must not take place, as established in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.
Not promise broken.
.....”The Argentine government promised to look into the toponymy in the Falklands - in the hope that modern “inventions” like Puerto Argentino could be put to bed. Another promise broken.“.....
Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Argentina hadn't promised to change the toponomy, just take into consideration the posibility of doing it.
Not promise broken.
.....”Argentina promised to work with the UK govt to assess the feasibility and cost of clearing (largely Argentine) mines from the Islands. Did Argentine work with the UK on this? No.“.....
What did UK do???? Nothing.
Not promise broken.
.....”The “war”. The only war I know about involving the Falklands happened in 1982.“.....
Again I haven't said war was right. I said, if we had had a strong force in 1833, you wouldn't have suceed in your pirate actions.
...”“AGAIN, who the hell are you to make that judgement?”
It's just my opinion. You don't have to agree with it...“.....
People who always talk about the moral of others are the ones who less have it!
.....”“.....”Taiwan is and island of 23 million people. I don't think your comparison makes any sense.“.....
That is not an excuse!”
I think you can come up with a better comparison Jorge, this one still makes no sense.“.....
Yes I can do it, but if you don't find any sense in any of my ideas, you have a problem.
.....”“Que ganas de perder el tiempo que tienen algunos eh!”
Speak for yourself!“.....
La tenes adentro!
”Diego Maradona”
No no, don't get angry, I was joking.
Tarzan, where are you from????
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0<<<Jorge said: “Didn't you realize yet I don't give a sh*t what you think???”>>>
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously you otherwise you would not keep coming back.
<<<“Argentine terretories were part of Spainsh empire. We took our rights by force. ”>>>
Yes, your right to independence but not any rights in a treaty between two other countries, which is absurd. Is that so difficult to understand?
<<<Do you remember when I asked “why UK did not take Tucuman?”, “San Lorenzo treaty made no difference between South America mainland and its adjacent islands.”, etc???? Your poor/predictable/honest answer was “UK did what it did because it suited them”. I'll keep that y punto.>>>
- It was an honest answer. Under article 6 Britain was entitled to take Tucuman IF THEY WANTED TO. Britain did not because it did not suit them. Anyway they have never been interested in Tucuman before and had no prior claim. They were interested in the FI and had a prior claim, and released from their obligations under Article 6 they took them. Simple.
<<<Argentina was not a third power, it continued the same old ruling of Malvinas from B.A. like it did until 1811.>>>
- Once again. A country can't “inherit” rights from a treaty between two other countries unless those two other countries agree. Argentina never had effective control of the Falkland islands. That is a myth.
<<<If their “rights” are not affected, why UN doesn't recognize them as a nation?>>>
Because the UN recognises the FI as a non self governing territory undergoing decolonisation - once the decolonisation is complete then they will be a nation. But Argentina continues to block this process
<<<“Uk has enough influence to pervert UN and does it!”>>>
- Argentina does exactly the same and has enough influence to keep the Falklands stuck in limbo on the C24 list. See above.
<<<.....”Actually the agreement did not specify how many flights LAN (or any other airline) could operate from Chile. Argentina arbitrarily made that 1 flight.“.....
.....It wasn't arbritrary. It was agreed!>>>
No, the number of flights was never agreed. Full support promised. Limited support given. Promise broken.
Correct. There was no open skies policy, there was a specific agreement to welcome the possibility of flights from third countries. But Argentina decided these flights were not so welcome afterall. Promise broken.
<<<The Falklands not allowed to issue fishing licenses because ”but unilateral actions modifying the situation of the Islands must not take place, as established in the resolutions adopted by the General Assembly.”>>>
- Where did you suck that one from Jorge? There was and still is absolutely nothing to stop the Falklands issuing licenses. The agreement was for co-operation and did not even mention licenses. Co-operation promised by Argentina? None. Promise broken.
<<<Bullshit!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (nice language Jorge) Argentina hadn't promised to change the toponomy, just take into consideration the posibility of doing it.>>>
Did Argentina even take this into consideration? No. So, actually, promise broken.
.....”Argentina promised to work with the UK govt to assess the feasibility and cost of clearing (largely Argentine) mines from the Islands. Did Argentine work with the UK on this? No.”.....
<<< What did UK do???? Nothing.>>>
The UK has been clearing those mines Argentina left behind for a while. Did Argentina work with the UK in this process? No. Promise broken.
J.A. ROBERTS , i ought you an answer, i told you more tham once the bases of my arguments, but it seems you dont understand me , i will try to be clearer.
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 06:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the viceroalty, it's true that it was joined by uruguay, paraguay, and part of bolivia, but those nations decided to separate part of the provincias unidas ( actual argentina), in diferents moments, to become into independent nations, so, they have no right on the malvinas-falklands.
About the spanish claim, it doesen't sorprise me, because spain not even recognized the independence of the provincias unidas during more tham 30 years, so, if the islands were an strategic point for their interests in the south atlantic, it was obvious the were going to keep on claiming for them.
The fact that the islands were submited to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty of the river de la plata, was true, that's why when we got the independence, it soposes that the islands were ours, in fact in 1829 it was created the militar command of malvinas, and luis vernet was the authority.
About what happened in 1833, why do i hold that in some aspects it was illegal?, because british sailors only had right to stablish on the islands, they were soported by the s. lorenzo treaty, but this treaty didn't mention a word about a soposed british sovereignty, beside the british left their garrison in port egmont in 1774, and for 59 years they didn't exercise any control on the islands, this is why i think that after all those years they lost their rights on the islands, so, they didn't have any right to force the argentine authoritys to leave the malvinas, and finally this is why i hold that in some apects what happened in 1833 was illegal.
About the economic dependence of argentina, you have right to think whatever you want, what i think, is that with the submition situation that argentina had in that time, any person that has unless a little of objetivity, would realise that my country wasen't in condition to claim to the u.k.
About including the islanders in the negociation, i told you once that i am thinking on taking the arguments of the islanders to minister taiana, and i will tell him what i think about the posture of both sides, beside i will ask him what he thinks about your arguments, and he will have to give me sustainable reasons to hold if your aguments are true or false.
Some day i will the truth of the whole history of the islands, i have studyed about it all my life, and i will keep on doing it, but reeding other's people opinions makes change my points of vew of the conflict.
jorge ; I am Argentine but living in Spain nowadays ..
Feb 02nd, 2010 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in here are too many tamed version British..( 200.000)
i have few fairy British friends and also they aren't like
tipsy and arrogant Jason Archibald Roberts !!
.....“Obviously you otherwise you would not keep coming back.”.....
Feb 03rd, 2010 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I come here and several forums (not involving Malvinas) to post my opinions. Is that something that bothers you???
.....“Yes, your right to independence but not any rights in a treaty between two other countries, which is absurd. Is that so difficult to understand?”.....
What part of “”San Lorenzo Treaty shows you had no rights over Malvinas“” did you fail to understand?
We didn't inherit the treaty, it shows you had no rights over Malvinas, OK???????
.....“It was an honest answer. Under article 6 Britain was entitled to take Tucuman IF THEY WANTED TO. Britain did not because it did not suit them. Anyway they have never been interested in Tucuman before and had no prior claim. They were interested in the FI and had a prior claim, and released from their obligations under Article 6 they took them. Simple.”.....
Your prior claim was dead with San Lorenzo Treaty and Friendship Treaty between UK and Spain. How many times will I have to repeat this for you to understand???
.....“Once again. A country can't ”inherit“ rights from a treaty between two other countries unless those two other countries agree. Argentina never had effective control of the Falkland islands. That is a myth.”.....
Once again, we took our rights and you stolen us. Your self-determination is a myth.
.....“Because the UN recognises the FI as a non self governing territory undergoing decolonisation - once the decolonisation is complete then they will be a nation. But Argentina continues to block this process”.....
If Argentina weren't right, UN would just give Argentina an asskicking and recognize your “rights”, but that has not happened and you can bet it will not.
.....“Argentina does exactly the same and has enough influence to keep the Falklands stuck in limbo on the C24 list. See above.”.....
I don't agree. How could Argentina (a third world country) have more influence than UK (a first world country). You are in that unfair ellite called Security Council and Argentina is not. You have more friends than Argentina around the whole world (as enemies) and you have more trading power to convince other countries. So Archibald, how could Argentina......, how could......-
.....“No, the number of flights was never agreed. Full support promised. Limited support given. Promise broken.”.....
It was agreed. A weekly flight from Pta. Arenas and a monthly stopover in Río Gallegos. Not promise broken. This is becoming a child game!
.....“Correct. There was no open skies policy, there was a specific agreement to welcome the possibility of flights from third countries. But Argentina decided these flights were not so welcome afterall. Promise broken.”.....
You should read what you wrote......agreement to welcome the POSSIBILITY of flights......Do you know what “possibility” means?
Again, not promise broken.
.....“Where did you suck that one from Jorge? There was and still is absolutely nothing to stop the Falklands issuing licenses”.....
Assembly resolution 31/49.
.....“Did Argentina even take this into consideration? No. So, actually, promise broken.”.....
How do you know that??? Are you in the goverment??? I don't think so! LOL
...“The UK has been clearing those mines Argentina left behind for a while.”...
Bullshit (nice language!
...“i have few fairy British friends and also they aren't like
Feb 03rd, 2010 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0tipsy and arrogant Jason Archibald Roberts !!”...
I agree with you Tarzan!
so if i were british ill said as a solid fact that an island that is in the other part of a continent belongs to england..... maybe as hong kong, gibraltar malvinas..... those are solid facts.... like maybe enter in the midle east countries to kill people and steal their resources ,funny..... and they actually face you and tell you that argentina has no claim on the island that is in his own continental plattform... try telling to a bank robber that he is guilty about forcing the bank and he will tell very solid facts that he is not.....so later they will want antartica and they will display solid facts concerning that issue..... your corrupt logic is an insult for a person that has education... so it was bad the way of getting what is ours because was made by a corrupt goverment imposed by the americans but still what england does not only in the malvinas but around the glove its just petty thief and its pathetic to think if this guys wont have their comon wealth they will be the lowest country in the eu.
Feb 03rd, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel,
Feb 03rd, 2010 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't see how the countries which decided not to join the United Provinces somehow lost their right to claim the Falklands? That makes no sense. All those countries were originally part of the Viceroyalty and Argentina's claim is on that basis.
About the Spanish claim. Of course it was obvious that Spain would continue to claim the Falklands, not because they were strategic but because Spain continued to claim the whole of what used to be the Viceroyalty including all the bits which are now Argentina.
Your independence did not automatically mean the Falklands - or any other parts of the former Viceroyalty - were yours. You had to take the bits you wanted by force or negotiation, which is what happened. If you claim the Falklands because they used to be governed out of Bs As then surely you must claim back Chile, Uruguay, Bolivia etc?? The military command you created was just that, an Argentine creation. You never had effective control over the Falklands at that time any more than you had effective control over Patagonia so the command was meaningless and if Vernet was the Argentine authority why on earth did ask the British for permission?
Britain never gave up its claim after 1774 and after 1790 its rights were limited by the San Lorenzo treaty but Britain was released from those limitations by the intervention of a third power - Argentina. There was nothing to stop Britain reasserting its claim. Argentina certainly had no automatic right to the Islands any more than it had automatic rights to the rest of the former Viceroyalty. I'm still not sure how Britain's actions in 1833 can have aspects of illegality.
jason archibald roberts , you lie becouse i don't smoke “viceroy” cigarette..
Feb 03rd, 2010 - 06:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you imply BAT (British American Tabacco) as message !..as connector
in some secret relations ? it is true ..
mmmmm it seems to me that more than 10 comments have been deleted!
Feb 05th, 2010 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!