What can Argentina gain from another Falklands dispute?

Beef

A very balanced and rational article.

I imagine the numerours Argentine comments will take the form of obscenities, accusations and name calling.

This response appears to be standard fare on these forums.

Mar 04th, 2010 - 11:19 pm - Link - 0

-+

A

Argntina may have the most beautifull and pretty president in the The world. If that was a qualifikation, they would be second to none.
The problem is , than an external good looking can`t compensate an internal lack of intelligence.

“It is wellknown , that an argentinian leader must be in political trouble, if the subject of Falkland Isl. has cume up again.....”

Have we forgotten L. Galtieri or......

Mar 04th, 2010 - 11:56 pm - Link - 0

-+

Cash

Several factual inaccuracies in this editorial betray this author’s bias. There are two outright mistakes and at least one intellectually dishonest argument: the geographical data, the U.S.’s historical stance, and the so-called “self-determination” of the island’s residents.
The Falklands rest about 480 kilometers off Argentina’s shores. That’s 300 miles, not 400. Unsurprisingly, the author neglects to mention that they are about 8,000 miles from English soil.
Secondly, the article refers to alleged U.S. neutrality on the Falklands issue as its “traditional policy.” Yet, during the height of Argentine-British tension, the Falkland Islands War of 1982, “U.S. Secretary of State Alexander Haig announced that the United States would prohibit arms sales to Argentina and provide material support for British operations. Both Houses of the U.S. Congress passed resolutions supporting the U.S. action siding with the United Kingdom.” (wikipedia.com) Does that sound like “studied neutrality,” as the author puts it? The fact is that a slew of political observers criticized Reagan’s outright support of the UK as a violation of the Monroe Doctrine. Today, the U.S. can be called neutral on the subject of the Falklands, technically speaking. However, regarding this oil-drilling venture, the Obama administration’s current attitude towards the UK is cool, at best.
Finally, the “self-determination” argument is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Of course the primarily British Islanders would support British sovereignty. It’s like arguing that the issue of sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay can be settled once and for all by taking a referendum of the American soldiers stationed there. Besides, it’s not as if the UK (or this author) would change its tune if the Islanders suddenly favored Argentine control.
There is no “weirdness” about Argentina’s claim on its Malvinas. If there is weirdness, it’s in the UK’s stubborn claim on islands that lie so close to Argentina’s shores that they are within her continental shelf, and very nearly within her exclusive economic zone. The truth is that President Kirchner, her popularity notwithstanding, should be praised for committing to only peaceful responses to the UK’s controversial (not to mention environmentally irresponsible) overtures. Her stance is a welcome departure from the foolishness, on both sides, that led to the 1982 war.

Mar 05th, 2010 - 07:32 am - Link - 0

-+

J.A. Roberts

Cash, The piece says “about” 400 miles, which is good enough considering Weddell Island to Stanley is about 100 miles as the crow flies. Hardly a factual inaccuracy. So what if the Falklands are 8000 miles from the UK. They do not form part of the UK so why would that be relevant? 
 
I think you are right regarding US neutrality, perhaps in public they have squeaked neutral sounds but traditionally they have been helpful... 
 
You are totally wrong about self determination being phony . The Islanders are primarily Falklanders. Most have been born in the Islands and many into families who have been in the Islands for 8 or more generations. They are as “British” as the Argentines are “Spanish”. You are also very wrong about the UK changing its tune if the Islanders decided to become Argentine. The UK has clearly stated many times that they will support whatever status the Islanders choose and the UK would be out of there like a shot, the UK has been trying to unwind its position in the Falklands for decades, but takes their self determination a bit more seriously now, and especially since 1982. Some argue that Argentina lost any moral right to a claim when it invaded. I'm inclined to agree. 
 
Claiming territory simply because it is near to you country IS downright “wierd” and totally without foundation. Who said it was Argentina's continental shelf anyway? The UK is on the French continental shelf, do they now have rights to us?

Mar 05th, 2010 - 08:20 am - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

“The Falklands rest about 480 kilometers off Argentina’s shores. That’s 300 miles, not 400. Unsurprisingly, the author neglects to mention that they are about 8,000 miles from English soil”

-Distance is not a factor in anything, France is 20 miles from the Mainland UK, are they ours? The Canaries are 1,000 miles from Spain yet 400 from Morroco should they thus be Morrocon, as you can utter togdly, the only reason the Argies kick up a fuss because they cannot comprehend the very real fact that people can decide who they wish to be 800-8,000 miles away. But that is irrelevant the UK only provides defence and representation on Foreign affairs for the islanders, they were the ones who approved the drilling operations, nothing to do with Whitehall.

Their Neutral over the sovereignty bit, but weren’t over the war aspect, remember NATO power, same with Israel they supplied weapons and material support to Israel but oppose the occupation of the pre 1967 territroies, just because they give guns doesn’t automatically translate into full support for sovereignty.If it was a violation of the Monroe doctrine then how come the US did not object to the UK re-establishing sovereignty over the islands? Obviously the US did not consider any violation had been wrought?

“ “self-determination” argument is as phony as a three-dollar bill. Of course the primarily British Islanders would support British sovereignty. It’s like arguing that the issue of sovereignty over Guantanamo Bay can be settled once and for all by taking a referendum of the American soldiers stationed there.”

No it isn’t. it’s covered by International Human Rights law, most of the 4,000 residents are 8 generation Islanders now, I think their pretty entitled to their self determination, why don’t you is it because white English speaking people are less entitled than others?

No it’s nothing like Guatanamo bay, utter bollocks! GB is leased territory for military use, the soldiers stationed there are rotated, hardly what you call “Naturalised inhabitants”. The Falklands contains 4,000 people whose families and descendets have been present there 180 years now, quite a few even further than that, the islanders presense surpasses the final formation of modern Argentina (1860), and 90% of Argentinas inhabitants who are descended from the immigration waves in 1890 and 1930.

“Besides, it’s not as if the UK (or this author) would change its tune if the Islanders suddenly favored Argentine control”

Yes they would, we tried to get rid of them in the 60’s the place was such a liability, but the islanders made it very clear they didn’t want to be bartered around like Chess pieces as Woodrow Wilson would say. We granted independence to a vast majority of the countries you see today when they requested it!

“There is no “weirdness” about Argentina’s claim on its Malvinas. If there is weirdness, it’s in the UK’s stubborn claim on islands that lie so close to Argentina’s shores that they are within her continental shelf, and very nearly within her exclusive economic zone.”

It bloody well is! See point one, we are on the Scandinavian continental shelf and at one point were a colony of Norway and denmark, legally by that Argument as a group of Islands we should be part of their countries then!

The British governement has obligatiosn regardless of their location and distance to it’s citizens, wouldn’t you agree?
If anything it’s stubbornness on Argentinas part who refuse to set up a tri part dialogue (UK, Argentina, Falklands) like is happening in Spain over Gibraltar, that’s a pathetic attitude to take for a country which under its own constitution says they are it’s own citizens, a small step would be to recognize the islanders Admistration, but not sovereignty, that way you can get talking, you can’t blank out the other side forever.

“UK’s controversial (not to mention environmentally irresponsible) overtures”

The UK didn’t authorize the drilling the islands democratic governemt did, there is nothing “Enviromentally reckless about it” The Falklands have a very robust vigorous and well thought out series of environmental laws, they have won awards in the past for their managing of Fish Stocks, and wildlife.
The British army recently was fined by the Islands Govt for setting fire to the heather in a protected zone on the Islands with smoke rounds.

Those drilling companies spent 4 years applying for these liscences whilst governement officials for the Islands checked every nook and cranny consulted international experts, and liased with their Whitehall counterparts to make sure that drilling operations were environmentally safe. Hardly “Reckless” But why do you care? Just another dig at the Brits and the islanders?

“The truth is that President Kirchner, her popularity notwithstanding, should be praised for committing to only peaceful responses to the Her stance is a welcome departure from the foolishness, on both sides, that led to the 1982 war”

Jerkner is an idiot manufacturing international disputes to boost your poll ratings is a reckless and dangerous thing to do, many of her laws regarding the islands are bizarre to say the least and point to a slightly unstable mind trying to get as much poll support as is possible. Every year since taking office she has played the “Malvinas Card” when she was faced with her little crises.

The Man who should be praised the most in Argentina is Menem he actively encouraged dialogue with the Islanders, it was his tireless efforts which lead to Umbrella Agreement in 1995 for joint cooperation between the UK, Falklands and Argentina over drilling and fisheries.
Mrs Jerkner tore both of those up in 2007 much to the dismay of many in both countries (Surprise surprise it was during suitcase scandal!!) and now Argentina shall pay the price economically for the vanity of a president who seems to have made enemies in every level of Argentine society.

Mar 05th, 2010 - 02:38 pm - Link - 0

-+

islander

Cash- a couple of tother points-1982 the US were impartial and tried their best to get the Arg Govt to see sense - but they refused and would not even stick to one policy but kept changing it every day or hour-so eventually US got fed up and gave up and had no option as a DEMOCRACY but to come down on the side of democracry,freedom and selfdetermination.
Secondly all offshore mineral exploration etc here is very tightly controlled by our environmental and safety legislation and all compaines have had to obtain and submit detailed environmental impact reports prior to our Govt(NOT UK) issuing any permits to drill.These rules are the same strict ones that apply to work in EU waters etc. I suspect they are equal to if not higher standards than those Argentina would use.
All oofshore activity here within our area zone is a matter for the Islands Govt NOT the Uk one. A lot of you folks just cannot get your heads around the fact that we have internal selfgovernment and independence. It is clear that if Arg ever took us over we would be 100% an old fashioned empire colony again- being told 100% what to do by nonresidents!!!

Mar 05th, 2010 - 02:44 pm - Link - 0

-+

exocet82

A very unbalanced and irrational article. FULL OF LIES!
Go ask the Argie auto manufacturers if they agree, or the hotel and restaurant owners on the coast, etc., etc., etc.

Mar 05th, 2010 - 04:21 pm - Link - 0

-+

Keith Hughes

I agree entirely. Argentina could make an enormous amount of money out of this which could solve their foregn debt problem outright. Their companies know about oil and international dealing. Who owns what these days is getting more and more irelevent with the planet becoming more and more intenational. We all of us in the world are now concerned with the whole worlds welfare as we all rely on each other now. Join in Argentina the job is enormous with huge rewards.

Mar 05th, 2010 - 04:22 pm - Link - 0

-+

islander

Fascinating- anything independent of the UK, that is the least bit critical of Argentina - is always “FULL of LIES” apparently!!!- very odd??

Mar 05th, 2010 - 05:22 pm - Link - 0

-+

globetrotter

Exocet still alive? did nobody send a Tomahawk through his toilet window?
I fully agree with comments 5,6,8. Argentina has absolutely nothing to gain with its political stance over the Falkland islands. Political idiots in the country continue to aggravate and distance themselves from their own people so what chance have they got with the islanders?????

Mar 06th, 2010 - 05:32 am - Link - 0

-+

Cash

RE: J.A. Roberts- 
Thank you for responding to my comments. I think we agree on most of our points, and where we disagree, you’ve given me fuel for thought, so I’ll start there. 
I’ve heard it argued on the other side, and rather persuasively, that if the UK had no rightful clam to the Falklands when they usurped it in 1833, then they have no rightful claim now, merely by passage of time. The residents there, the argument goes, are squatters. 
But you raise a good point. Squatters or not, it’s insensitive to argue that the Islanders should have no say. Their wishes play a HUGE role in sorting this conflict out. What I should have said is that it’s phony to argue that the political will of the Falklanders is the ONLY relevant issue. That line, in and of itself, is just a talking point – a regurgitation of the UK government’s perfunctory reluctance to discuss the issue in any meaningful, productive way. Giving deference to either government’s platitudes will get us nowhere. It would be equally as useless to adopt Galtieri’s 1982 rigid and bellicose insistence that Argentina has 100% sovereignty, end of story. The truth lies somewhere in the middle. 
As for nomenclature, I certainly meant no offense to the good people of the Falklands. I call them British only because my understanding was that they are British citizens, and proud to be so. Please correct if I’m wrong. I have no problem calling them Falklanders, of course. 
We’re in agreement on all other matters, in fact, but for two or three. The 1982 war should have little or no bearing on Argentina’s (or the UK’s) moral claim to the islands. Diplomacy has since prevailed and we’ve moved on. I don’t understand the argument. 
I didn’t mean to imply that Argentina’s claim on the Falklands arises solely from their proximity. It controlled them from 1820-1833, it was very active in pioneering air travel in the 70s, provided the island its energy…yadda, yadda. I refer you to wikipedia.com rather than parrot everything here. My point is that this editorial’s author is presenting a pro-British bias. There is no weirdness in Argentina’s claim on the Malvinas, nor in the UK’s on the Falklands. Both sides have legitimate, historically binding claims on the isles, or the issue wouldn’t be as hotly debated. The author’s implication that Argentina should act as if nothing’s wrong is ludicrous. To say that the UK should surrender the islands to Argentina tomorrow would be equally ludicrous. 
As long as we fail to address this issue honestly, cooler heads will have a hard time prevailing. This can work out one of two ways. 
The UK can maneuver cautiously around the islands, at great economic and political expense. pretending that Argentina doesn’t loom over the horizon, and Argentina can petulantly enforce its waters and make things as logistically difficult for the Brits as possible. This Kabuki ocean theater can go on until somebody hears a gunshot, and then we’ll have another war on our hands. 
OR, we can compel these two governments to come to the table and have an honest dialogue. 
The latter is the wise, moderate, reasonable approach, but you wouldn’t know it from reading this misleading editorial. 
Finally, J.A., I remind you that you’re entitled to argue opinions, but you’re not entitled to argue facts. The islands are 300 miles from Argentina. If you think wikipedia is unreliable, then how about a British citation? See www.historylearningsite.co.uk. When it’s 2 o’clock, I don’t say that it’s about 3, and then defend myself with a straight face. You can’t dispute facts that are not in question. It just doesn’t pass the laugh test. You seem intelligent and reasonable, so I beseech you to remain honest. If you go around telling people that black is white, your credibility will begin to erode. 
Speaking of which, your man Rhaurie-Craughwell made several good points to which I’d love to provide a response, but I’m reluctant to abide name-calling. We can do better than to call people jerks, even if they deserve it, and to call measured commentaries bullocks. Any reasonable person would agree that it’s childish and unhelpful. More significantly, it’s highly unlikely to sway global onlookers towards your point of view. 
Briefly, however, I’ll point out that he has made too many grammatical errors to enumerate, as well as several factual blunders. The Falklands’ 2008 population was 3,140, according to several sources, not 4,000. Maybe we can count on Rhaurie to extend the Falklands out to 500 miles away from Argentina’s mainland. The distances here are probative, by the way, unlike the examples provided in Rhaurie’s comment. Last I checked, Norway and Denmark were not disputing the UK’s sovereignty over the UK. 
Rhaurie attributes a host of opinions to me that I did not espouse. Just as an example, the current President Kirchner is certainly not without her faults. I merely said that she should be praised for refraining from threats of war. I agree that Menem handled things better, in general, and with a few of Rhaurie’s other points, but it’s hard to hear above the din of his screaming. 
Cheers, J.A.!

Mar 06th, 2010 - 05:41 am - Link - 0

-+

Hoytred

Cash - the British usurped nobody in 1833. They told an Argentinian garrison to leave the Falkland Islands as they were trespassing on territory previously claimed by Britain. That garrison left. An act of trespass gives no right of sovereignty. I would add that -
a) Argentina was invited to take its case to the International Court of Justice on 4 occassions, with the UK agreeing in advance to abide by that court's decision, and on 4 ocassions the Argentinian government refused.
b) The present Argentinian government can clim little international support other than those latin american countries that surround it. The USA remains nuetral and Spain has clearly stated that the issue lies between the UK and Argentina.
c) The UK is SO confident of its legal and moral claim to the islands that there remains NOTHING to discuss on this issue.
d) The islanders views are PARAMOUNT, and that is as it should be.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 07:14 am - Link - 0

-+

Cash

Hoytred, you miss the point. I agree that “usurp” is a highly controversial word to use in that context. I was referencing a viewpoint that is not my own. Reread the comment. You're shooting the messenger. 
a) Not aware of this. I'll have a look. TY. 
b) Sure, the whole world is neutral, except for the summit of 32 nations that just threw their support behind Argentina. This is not a winning argument for UK. 
c) This is an editorial declaration, to which you’re entitled. However, it doesn’t introduce any relevant factors. 
d) It’s certainly very important. I’m not sure that even the Argentine government would disagree, self-interested as it is in winning hearts and minds there. I’ll speak for myself. It’s a little hard to swallow that it’s paramount. That’s London’s only talking point, so I’m skeptical, to say the least, that I should just take it at face value and head for the sunset. It’s a very restrictive attitude that reflects poorly on the UK’s image at this time, or this thing wouldn’t even be as much of a story. I’d rather hear a real person’s perspective, as should be clear by my presence here.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 08:32 am - Link - 0

-+

Hoytred

UK offers to go to arbitration occurred in 1947, 1951,1953 1nd 1954 although looking at this it seems that the question may have concerned just South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands .. I'll check that. As to the Falkland islanders views ....... They've had the question put to them more than once I believe. Is Islander out there somewhere ?

Mar 06th, 2010 - 09:12 am - Link - 0

-+

J.A. Roberts

Cash,

Don't argue the facts you say? Stop picking nits is what I say. The piece uses the word “about”. Considering the Falklands are more than 100 miles across and the piece does not specify from where in the Falklands the distance to the mainland is being measured - it could be from Stanley for example - “about” 400 miles is good enough. What is the problem with that? The key word is “about”. You then devote a whole paragraph to lecturing me about how I my “credibility might erode” despite me being “intelligent”. Sorry, but that does nothing more than make you appear faintly ridiculous.

If you think the Falkland Islanders are squatters, despite most of them coming from families who have been in the islands for many generations, then what do you call Italo- or Germano- or Hispano-Argentines who came over to Argentina many decades after the Falklands had been settled? Are then not also squatters - on Mapuche land?

If you are so concerned about facts you should know that Argentina did not control the Islands from 1820 to 1833. Buenos Aires/United Provinces had intermittent control over one settlement in the islands, but never established itself there by any measure nor did it ever “control the Islands”. They were pretty much a free-for-all until at least the 1840s.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 10:18 am - Link - 0

-+

Stevie P

Hi Cash,
You still haven't explained why the view of the Islanders shouldn't be paramount. The British government has made it very clear that there will be no talks on sovereignty without the consent of the Islanders. What this means is that if Argentina want some kind of resolution to the sovereignty 'dispute' then they need to engage with the Islanders. If Argentina is now of the view that the invasion in 82 was wrong, maybe a good starting point is an official apology to the Islanders? It seems odd to me that you think that what happened in 82 should have no bearing on the current situation - i expect that if you lived in the islands at the time, you wouldn't think so. Then again perhaps I underestimate the humiliation felt by Argentinians over the defeat of their forces in 82 - perhaps you could give us some insight?
You seem to place a significant amount of importance to geography and the fact that Argentina is 300 miles away from the Islands (although I don't quite follow why you think that a country's EEZ has any bearing on sovereignty). 300 miles is still 300 miles and that's 300 miles further away than those who have lived in the islands for generations and made them what they are today.
Re those 32 countries and their 'support' for Argentina, can you post a link to the resolution or declaration that they all signed up to re the Falklands. Am struggling to find anything other than comments from Argentine diplomats about the closed door sessions (not that Argentine diplomats can't be trusted of course), some rantings by Chavez and a UN security council play by Brazil.

And you can also explain your comment that Argentina controlled the Islands from 1820 to 1833. Am struggling to find anything to support this.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 10:38 am - Link - 0

-+

globetrotter

Gentlemen, every one of you has a huge element of truth and fact to disseminate, and over which, many openly thinking educated people have a feast for thought and discussion. There is a lot of abuse and exchange of verbal theatrics to accompany comments and opinions…this is a shame for Argentina. Unfortunately, there are huge vociferous, uneducated and radical elements within the country that are incapable of rational thought and who, are led by a society bred on a nationalistic curriculum. Nonetheless, and rest assured, there is an abundant quantity of people who do not support these radical thoughts and elements, who wish to seek a permanent solution to the Falklands/ Malvinas which is agreeable to all. I am one of those. I am also one of those who has taken his daughter out of the public educational system, and pay the sacrifice for her private education, at least, she gets better education, and is freed from the nationalistic claptrap prevalent in the majority of our schools. In essence, nothing will change the situation until successive generations have grown out of the “las malvinas son argenetinas” syndrome but, that’s like asking what came first, the egg or the chicken.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 04:15 pm - Link - 0

-+

nitrojuan

a stupid article.... Arg. always will be claim their islands,, it is in the National Constitucion.....

Mar 06th, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - 0

-+

Chris

Oh dear, seems Spain isn't going to support Argentina through its EU presidency term as Argentina had hoped. 
 
”BRUSSELS, March 5 (UPI) -- Despite deep cultural ties, Spain has sent Argentina a strong message it doesn't want the European Union involved in any kind of mediation initiative over the British drilling for hydrocarbons in the waters of Falklands. 
 
Spain currently holds the rotating six-month presidency of the EU and was widely expected in Argentine diplomatic quarters to be more sympathetic than other European states to Argentina's current campaign to bring its claims over Falklands to an international forum. 
” 
http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/03/05/EU-stays-clear-of-Falkland-Islands-oil-dispute/UPI-70871267823016/

Mar 06th, 2010 - 09:06 pm - Link - 0

-+

Cash

Thank you all for your comments. We’ll just have to agree to agree on some points, and disagree on others. Primarily, I remain unconvinced on the salient issues regarding this biased article. I’m a little disappointed that none of the substantial comments contained herein simply admit that this is a biased article and leave it at that. The best argument in defense is that it’s an editorial, rather than a news article, and there's nothing wrong with that. The problem is that it’s making the rounds on the Internet as if it were a news article, while misrepresenting the facts that we’ve discussed here ad nauseam, and omitting others, with which we’ve done the same. 
I’ll sign off here with a rebuttal of J.A.’s and Stevie’s points. Then I’m off to media links that might shed more light on why this Washington Post editorial, in particular, is making the rounds. See you there! 
J.A., 
C’mon. Really? The distance from Staten Island to Manhattan is 5.2 miles. That’s because when calculating distances, people generally use the two points nearest to one another. Nobody says it’s “about 25 miles” because they choose to measure from Staten Island’s southernmost point to Manhattan’s northernmost. C’mon! Even Stevie acknowledges that it’s 300 miles, and I doubt you’ll find him in the streets of Buenos Aires dancing the tango anytime soon. 
You accuse me of nit-picking and then harp on this issue of “control” over the islands circa 1833. Here’s a citation. “1833, Jan3. Britain ousted a small group of Argentine settlers and seized control of the Malvina (sic) Islands (Falkland Islands) in the South Atlantic.” (timelinesdb.com/listevents.php?subjid=234&title=Falkland%20Islands) 
Even so, if you want to dispute the term “control,” be my guest. My point is that the editorial that started this fire is off base in saying that there is “weirdness…in the fact that there is no modern history of an Argentine connection to the “Malvinas…” And you know that. 
Stevie, 
I’ve explained why I believe that the Islanders’ will is of the essence, but not the solitary issue. 
1) I know the Britsh government’s position on the issues. As I’ve made clear, I’m looking for original ideas. 
2) Let’s remain civil. Feelings of humiliation are best addressed in a therapist’s office, not in a diplomatic forum. 
a) I’m sorry you’re struggling. Let’s see if I can help. I’m Googling “32-nation summit of Argentine support.” Just a second here, oh, yes! I’ve been taken to the story. This must be a wildly pro-Argie “news source” to print this garbage. Let’s see. Yup. It’s the BBC. Does that help with your struggle? 
b) As for the history of the islands, ask someone else to type “History of Falkland Islands” into a “computer” (It’s this handy new thing that just came out). Then someone can read it to you. OK? Do your homework. 
Aside from that, I repeat my thanks for engaging in this volley of commentaries.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 09:25 pm - Link - 0

-+

J.A. Roberts

Cash, I don't think I ever took a view on the bias of the article. But I still think you are splitting hairs re the distance from the mainland. There's no point in flogging a dead horse. You think it's important, I think “about” is close enough. Shall we leave it at that?

You didn't get around to letting me know if you think (relatively) recent immigrants to Argentina are squatters or not. Assuming you apply the same criteria you did to the Falkland Islanders.

As for ousting a small group of Argentine settlers in 1833, the facts say otherwise. The garrison was ousted, true, and on pretty good grounds, but most of the settlers remained. They were actively encouraged to remain by the British. In fact some of their descendants are still on the islands today.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 09:42 pm - Link - 0

-+

Islander

Cash and others - yes our views have been made clear thought our elected govt on several occasions to the UK Govt. They are that we prefer to stay British for the time being and be allowed to gradually develop our economy and political system as we wish -gradually towards one of more and more selfgovernment. The only thing that stops us from considering Independence itslef is Argentina - because of her attitiude we have to remain British so we will not be invaded and taken over again- we know perfectly well that a takeover is exactly what would happen pretty quickly if there were no British Forces here.
I agree with you in that one day both sides need to talk - on an open agenda with no prefixed outcome to one side, but that time is a long way off yet - a lot of goodwill and trust has to be rebuilt first and Arg has done its best to destroy all trust since the “K”s came to power.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - 0

-+

Cash

OK, one last comment from me. 
J.A., 
What I think is important is to correct errors of fact that make their way into the mainstream media. The editorial introduced a factual error into the dialogue, so I corrected it. That's it. I really have no quarrel with you, just with the editorial. 
No, of course Argentines are not squatters, any more than Falklanders are squatters. You've taken my words out of context and attributed to me an opinion that is not my own. I was referencing an extreme opinion that I've heard from the other side, with which, btw, I completely disagree, if you must know. 
Finally, I reiterate that the editorial is misleading, at best, about Argentina's “weirdness” in making a claim because she has no historical connection to the islands. That's not true. It would be fine and worthy of debate and all of that good stuff to argue (as you do, in much more moderate fashion than the article) that Argentina's connection is scant, on balance, or something to that effect. But the editorial goes far beyond that and into the realm of untenable opinion. 
Islander, 
I just picked up that you’re an actual Falklander. How cool is that? Very cool is the answer. I feel fortunate to be getting your first-hand impressions of these issues. I’ll keep tabs of your input in the future if I possibly can. If I keep commenting on this particular site, I’ll never get to my studies again. ☺ 
I really hope you’re wrong that feelings of good will are a long way off. But then, you’re probably more hopeful for that than I am. As a New Yorker, I know the trauma of living with recent memories of war. It’s not good. How’s that for understatement? 
Against the odds, fingers are crossed here as well for a discussion without agenda and with no prefixed outcome. It surely gets us part of the way there to express that wish.

Mar 06th, 2010 - 11:12 pm - Link - 0

-+

Hoytred

For a history of the Falklands see “Getting it Right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas” a research document issued by 2 academics in rebuttal of Argentinian claims. Available as a pdf document on the internet. www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Mar 07th, 2010 - 02:49 am - Link - 0

-+

Stevie P

Cash,
Using your numbering at 20 above to respond to your comments:

1. Have another look at my comment - I was referring to the position of the British government to make the point that if Argentina want a solution they should start engaging with the Islanders given that Britain will only discuss sovereignty when the Islanders consent.
2. I've read the media reports about the support of the 32 countries. Typically at the end of these types of meetings, the relevant forum issue declarations or resolutions in writing signed up to by all of the participating states. These declarations etc are then published. This 32 country meeting was a closed session and I've yet to see any reports directly quoting the relevant declaration or resolution supporting the Argentine position. I'm not saying it didn't happen but it does seem odd that no such document has been issued.
3. You made a sweeping statement that Argentina controlled the Islands from 1820 to 1833. I'm fairly familiar with the history of the Islands but question whether you are. As J A Roberts has already mentioned, Vernet's settlement was not expelled from the Islands. Onslow only ordered the 'Argentine' garrison to leave but encouraged members of the settlement to stay. The Argentine garrison had only been on the Islands for 3 months. If you want to make an argument that Argentina controlled the islands for 3 months then I might be more sympathetic. Then again even that is highly questionable and relies on a very loose definition of control. This is because 9 members of the garrison mutinied and murdered their commander on November 30 1832. These mutineers then took control of the garrison and tried (without success) to capture a British schooner. When that failed, they fled into the hills before being captured by the crew of a French ship.
Lastly, congratulations on working out that 'Islander' is from the Islands. It's weird that you think that feelings of goodwill between the Islanders and Argentina are a long way off. Do you have any idea how difficult the current Argentine government has tried to make their lives over the past few years?

Mar 07th, 2010 - 03:51 am - Link - 0

-+

Cash

I would like to apologize to Islander for using the law student’s excuse to assert that I will not check his/her comments hereafter. “His,” I assume for some reason? To be honest, I’ll tell you, Islander, I am luckier than I could have imagined to get your point of view on this, as we are all. One day soon, I’d like to visit your island and have a Boddington’s. Is that possible? I’ll tell you what – offer a beer you got, and I’ll accept or decline, and I’ll probably accept. But the first round is on you. ☺ What say you?

Mar 07th, 2010 - 11:08 am - Link - 0

-+

AI

Cash quiero contactarme con vos.

Mar 07th, 2010 - 11:26 pm - Link - 0

-+

AI

mnicolas_77@hotmail.com

Mar 07th, 2010 - 11:27 pm - Link - 0

-+

Steve

Cash, thank you for saying “I’d like to visit YOUR island” at 26 above. I think this is the point we as British are trying to make. With a few past exceptions (notably USA and Ireland) British colonies have been given the right of self determination. Indeed in many cases colonies have had to be 'pushed' to independence. I don't see the future of the Falklands as any different from that of French Polynesia, or New Caledonia. The only difference being that a foreign power is posed to take over the Falklands in the same way that China snatched Tibet or Indonesia snatched East Timor (incidentally injustices where both occupiers have an arguable claim) so a strong British defence presence is required there.
It is also interesting that despite Chile's recent mistake of backing Argentina's claim Chile has weekly flights into the Falklands and there appears to be a good neighbourly relationship there - if Chile keeps this up for 100 years maybe one day the islanders will vote to become part of Chile :)

Mar 08th, 2010 - 01:51 am - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Steve, the problem is sharing the resources.
Malvinenses, do not whant to share the resourses with anybody.
After all Argentina can be much worse than it is now, against the Malvinenses.
By the way, it is known that the interest of uk about the island are not the people, but the proyections on Antartica.
You can read is this blog
http://europeangeostrategy.ideasoneurope.eu/2010/03/07/the-falklands-the-european-unions-antarctic-key/#comment-1063
May be if the Malvinenses will not be used to get what this post is talking about, we can agree more, don't you think soo??
So may be if you relinquish the brit defenses, we can have some ground for understanding..
Regards

Mar 08th, 2010 - 06:08 pm - Link - 0

-+

atkins3570

I think Rhaurie-Crughwell hit the right issue (up on the list of articles). Regognize the Falklands government!
After the sun sets and the dust settles....the Argentinean government could recognize the Falklands government, propose a common economic area, take the initiative to include the Falklands in Mercosur....get more attractive to international investors....and last but not least stop using the Falklands issue to fix her political squabble!
Besides, the president was a student activist during the seventies!!!! Go figure!

Mar 08th, 2010 - 08:05 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Their Neutral over the sovereignty bit, but weren’t over the war aspect, remember NATO power, same with Israel they supplied weapons and material support to Israel but oppose the occupation of the pre 1967 territroies, just because they give guns doesn’t automatically translate into full support for sovereignty.If it was a violation of the Monroe doctrine then how come the US did not object to the UK re-establishing sovereignty over the islands? Obviously the US did not consider any violation had been wrought?
The US will never allow an European outpost on Malvinas!!!
Rest assure.
That is the reason never had recognized british sovereignity.
In fact in 1982, many prominent americans like Burton, Helms, Kirkpatrick, they did not want to support the uk.
That is out of the question.
Even Regis Debray told Mitterrrand to support Argentina in 1982.
The reason that it was difficult, because of the bad Junta in Argentina.
In any case, the one who really had to be concerned is South America.
They voted in a written document, Malvinas Argentinas,the uk has a permanent vote in the UNSC, it should be revoked, you can not hold a post if you do not have an impartial position.
That is the reason, that we are propelling Brazil to have a permanent vote, the USA, never voted for malvinas inglesas.
Consult CIA factbook, they refer has malvinas /falklands

Mar 08th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - 0

-+

islander

Cash - Boddintons or JohnSmiths-your choice.Tte Estavez , we have o real problem with sharing offshore resources - after all IF(its only an if!!) Oil is there I have no idea what we would or could do with that sort of massive income! There is a limit to what you can put in the bank for the future for such a small population - even if we grow to say 10.000people!
It is my hope - but will take a generation or two to happen because of hotheads on both sides - that something can happen like a 3 way agreement between UK-Islands and Argentina - UK cedes sovereignty( in a 3rd place so no flags here) to Argentina- Argentina at the same moment immediatley recognizes the Islands right of self determination and our Independence.
UK thus withdraws from the Islands and we decome Independent - a small member of the British Commonwealth(like many other ex British but now Independent nations) and thus keep our links that we value to the crown and heritage etc etc. Argentina has had its claims recognised. As we are such a small place there would be sense in Arg representing us in say MercoSur and perhaps OAS. We would have the right to represent ourselves in the Un but might choose to delgate this to UKand Arg together in practical terms? We would have a representative and office in BA - just like we do now in London.
I dont believe in, nor recognise Argentina,s claim - but I know it is unlikley to ever go away so in the long term we need to find a way of dealing with it that everyone can say they have got their point - and all sides are happy.

Mar 08th, 2010 - 08:26 pm - Link - 0

-+

atkins3570

kudos to you 33 islander! 
 
I think you should send your comments to both Kristina and Gordon! Best sense so far! 
 
Cheers Mate!

Mar 08th, 2010 - 08:36 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte estevez

Islander 33, rest assured that me and many Argentines, have no problem(personal with any of you, and certainly we do not want to upset your way of life)
The problem(you can even consult in The encyclopedia Britannica,under Antartic rivalries) is that the F/M, is used as a possible base for Antartica, I am not making this up,I posted a link to that article for Eu Startegy,sugesting using the island has a base for Antartic explotation.
If you people help Argentina and Chile to stand for the claims on SG, SS and Antartica,and not the european, so not to be used by them has a military outpost, I think we gladly help you in many issues.
If you can convince your people to that..
Well I think we can go a long way, as partners, if not unfortunately no body in S AMERICA or the USA is going to support an EuROPEAN OUTPOST.
regards

Mar 08th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - 0

-+

Islander

Tte, I would hope that the internationalism of the Antartic Treaty will always remain. It has to - otherwise there will be a war down there as countries fight for what they think is their share. If it is developed then It has to be developed for all mankind and that is best done under a long term extension of the Treaty, which will also ensure that any economic development if allowed is done within strict conservation rules. Of course we here want to see our port used as a base for exploration and development as well -not just all over in Ushuaia- we want to share some as well! We dont mind who uses our facilities that we may develop, hopefully not just Europeans, perhaps Africans,Indians.even Brazil one day. SG no, that one is definatley British I feel - there is no doubt they discovered it first by anyone. It has little potential for Antarctica though as you cannot put an airfield there unless you spend billions flattening a mountain range- even then the unstable weather would make it a bad place.SS Islands - I think most of them come into the Treaty Area anyway?
Anyway geography and exisiting logistics facilities makes Ushuaia an ideal place for Antarctica - after all thats why so many international expedition cruise vessels operate from there.
I agree I hope that one day the whole southern cone area of Chilean and Argentine Patagonia, TDF and the Islands will be cooperating on things like tourism,environment,natural resources like fishing etc. After all 150 years ago all 3 were linked in the pioneer days- and then somebody invented politics!

Mar 08th, 2010 - 10:46 pm - Link - 0

-+

tte Estevez

Islander, I do not now what is the future of Antartica, but for sure, you have read what that idiot says in the blog. 
He never mentioned the islander, he only want to have control over the Drake pasage, the resources and all that crap, so uk can be more important for the EU. 
What make you believe that they will not change sides? 
You do not think that the people who leave in the South Atlantic should have more say?? or you prefer to leave it for outsiders that really do not care about you or me??? 
In the same way, ask scotland or norway, who should control the baltic or the North sea and if they will allow Argentinians to circulate there. 
As far as SG, no the British did not discover. The spaniards discovered and the name was San pedro. 
The Argentines operates a postal station in SG since 1905. 
The Compañia Argentina de pesca, of Argentinians capitals operated until whaling was no longer profitable, about 1960. 
I can give you reference books about the SG. 
Guillen the first Spanish governor of Malvinas, SG, and all S atlantic island, was apointed in 1797 , I think. 
There was no way the british could have discover any island in the South Atlantic, because they were banned by treatys(nOOTKA, and others) 
So sorry the british want to have more say that they actually have. 
As far as Antartica goes, well Australia is making provision and claims and made huge military hardware expenditure, like about 50 F35, about 70 billion US in military hardware. 
So sorry, but since we live in the South atlantic, I think we are the ones to really master them, and not be servant of any power. 
Argentina does not need your island, since Usuahia, has better infraestructure. But please do not bring colonizers here. 
And believe me, if we are not firm about to protect were we live, the thing will get very hot... 
Trust me, the farther we push those powers away, the better will be for us. 
We should be the only one deciding the future of the South Atlantic, no body else. 
I trust that we agree in that. 
We pushed the Spaniards out once, I do not want to have other colonizers. 
Regards

Mar 09th, 2010 - 12:14 am - Link - 0

-+

monica

I am not against people living in the Falklands/Malvinas. But I am really scared of British. They have always been invaders, they are proud of their past as “pirates”. How many people around the world have the English killed, raped and make slaves? Millions and millions. And they are proud of that. They are proud of their Monarchy and their Empire, knowing that they have destroyed so many lives along five centuries!!! Think what they have done in Africa. And in India!!! If the English had not “discovered” those continents, they surely would have had a better destiny. But they were so greedy. They were pirates and murderers. How can they be proud of their history? What kind of history books do they read? Those who are considered national heroes in Britain, are considered murderers in the places they have colonised. Remember the black people in Africa. They were hunted like animals by the English and put in horrible ships. Most of them died during the journey. They were starving, ill, tortured. Millions of lives lost in the hands of the English. And India?? Poor people!!! What the English did to those people is unforgiven. Cruelty, cinism and greed have characterised the English history. They have been terribly cruel even with their neighbours. Don´t you know how they made Scotland, Ireland and Wales part of Britain? Certainly, not in a friendly way. And to Southamerica they have caused a terrible damage through history as well. In the 15th-16th-17th centuries they attacked ships and robbed the gold and silver produced in America. Many historians (Eric Hobsbawm among them) claim that England could start Industrial Revolution (and capitalism) thanks to all the gold and silver they have robbed through centuries. Not to mention that also thank to the explotation of the poor India. And in the 18th-19 th centuries, they stopped being “pirates and robbers” to start being “legal exploters” of all the wealth in Latin America. San Martin wanted LatinAmerica to be a big country, but the English would never allow that. It was not good business for them, so they boicotted the proyect and caused separation between countries, so that they could explote them economically as they did. And how they did it!!! If the English had not existed, our history would have been completely different. They have ruined three continents (South America, Asia and Africa). They have exploted all our wealth and use it for their good. They did not care about decency, honesty or mankind. And they are really good liers. They tell a history which is not true. They invaded Malvinas and threw Argentine people away, as they have always done through centuries all around the world. They are guilty of this, and even much more horrible things. But they are cinical enough to deny the obvious history and considered themselves “gentlemen”. Would gentlemen have killed so many people in so many different countries? Would gentlemen have slavised and hunted people as they did for so long? Would gentlemen have destroyed the economy of three entire continents as they did in the past? Sorry, but all the arguments in favor of British, cannot be considered more than cinical. Read history!!! Open your eyes!!! British rulers have been murderes, invaders, exploters all along their history. They have had no mercy, no sense of humanity. So, what are you talking about?? What right have the British to talk about what is right and what is wrong??

I have nothing against islanders in Malvinas. They deserve to have a peaceful life. They are not to blame. They do not have blood in their hands. But the English!!! They have the blood of millions and millions of people whose lives they killed directly (through their wars, persecutions and slaughters), or indirectly (as in SouthAmerica, through the ruin they have caused to our economies in the 18th-19th centuries? People from three continents should sue the English. They should pay us back all the wealth they have robbed through centuries. How much would that be? Can you imagine? They should compensate the descendants of those families ruined by the imperialist policy. Millions and millions and millions and millions of euros. And even so, it would not be enough. They only would thing they should do, is stop being so criminal. Have a minimal sense of human decency. Leave people alone!!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 02:35 am - Link - 0

-+

exocet82

Monica, Marry me!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 04:28 am - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

Monica are you familiar with the planet earth?

I could destroy and humiliate 98% of that verbal ramble you just did!

Lesson 1: I could be a very rich man the amount of times you said “English” It's British you moron, has been for the last 300 years, when Scotland voted Democratically, as did the English parliament to form a new state called the UK.

lesson 2: How did you end up in South America my little white European friend?

Mar 09th, 2010 - 10:49 am - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

You have been warned Monica, prepare for a lesson in History the Craughwell way, we Scottish Irish have always had a fanatical hatred of distortions in our countries history, always feel the need to shoot others down when the are so blindly wrong..........

Mar 09th, 2010 - 10:52 am - Link - 0

-+

khh

exocet, GAY marrage is now leagle in grease land so you can if you want,laugh

Mar 09th, 2010 - 12:02 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

For sure raurie, you are rigth. Masive killing in Africa, India never existed, by the British or eslavery and Cecil Rhodes should be given the Nobel Peace Price(postumus)
kkk, of course you refer to England....(grease land sound like england...
.

Mar 09th, 2010 - 12:22 pm - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

Judging by the massive strides in economic and Human Rights progress made since Rhodesia became Zimbabwe, perhaps he should?

I think you will Find Great Britain was the first country to abolish slavery, and actively forced other nations to stop the slave trade, even the Great Boliva who the great baboon Chavez croons over had a brace of Slaves and declared that African's in SA were unfit for civillization.

Perhpas they did or perhaps they didn't but it would helpful if you defined the term, there were “massive killings” pre colonisation and even “more massive killings” post colonisation, however you should note that Britains African colonies with the exception of Sierra Leone and Zimbabwe (post Rhodesia only) have retained a varying degree of stability in stark contrast to other ex-colonies. World wide this is the case as well.
You better take lessons from History, Argentina is one of few white european nations in the world which has gone from first world to a third world country, perhaps if you didn't bleat about the Falklands so much and notice the very shakey foundations and lack of outside investment in your own country, Argentina is being left behind by the rest of South America and for what a group of windswept islands and short term political gain, madness!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 01:58 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Madness you create. Look at staten island, does the world care about them??/ NO
You made the fuss in Malvinas by not allowing free access and asociation with the continent.
What happens to the people in 1833, punk???
And Argentina is not a 3 world country, and now is more developed than when we were under brits rules.
So stop believing in the lies.
Argentina, under the brit empire, was a banana republic, but without bananas..
So who ever told you about beign from 1 world to 3 world is a massive lie!!
the case of chile earthquake disclosed the big gap between rich and poor, which is spected for a country that mainly produces copper and fruits. By the way the big multinational fruits corporations in chile are the primary beneficiaries.
The document I have posted before for european strategy, shows very well of european intentions.
But of course as avery religious person, like me who have faith in the almighty justice, probably is true that europeans are going to give bith to the third antichrist and they shall be punished handsomely.
By the way raurie, what happens to brit justice in diego garcia or the illegal invasion in irak or afghanistan??
Did you know that under international law you guys commited a crime??

Mar 09th, 2010 - 03:19 pm - Link - 0

-+

monica

Dear Rhaurie-Craughwell 
 
My opinion on the matter is worth considering. You shouldn´t be so aggressive or take it so personal. You do not know me. I could be an old lady. How can you call me little white European or moron. You are being so rude. I used to think British people were well-mannered, but apparently this is not the rule. 
Of course, I know the difference between England and Britain. It is the same when you talk about Southamerica and Argentina. I am never annoyed to be called Southamerican. We should have been a big country called Southamerica, not problem with that. I know that my commentary has mistakes. It was not supposed to be a history lecture, it was intended to make a point. And certainly, it did, considering how angry you are with my statements. 
You said that Argentina passed from being a First World country to a Third World country. You are not completely right, we have never been a First World country, but I see your point and I agree with you. After all, this is not supposed to be a history lecture, isn´t it? 
What you should consider (and don´t get angry), if the role Britain had in the destiny of my country. The main people to be blamed are us, because our corrupted rulers have sold our wealth for their own benefit to the best “option”. And during centuries, Great Britain gathered a huge fortune “making business” with Argentina. Read about Tratado Roca-Runciman for example, and how a decent man like Lisandro de La Torre was led to suicide but our corrupted mafia in Argentina in alliance with British businessmen and politicians. We (Argentinians) cannot be proud of our history, of course. But British have a great influence in what happened to us, and have made huge fortunes, “making business” in Argentina. When I blame the British for many tragedies occurred around the world in the last five centuries, I am not talking about ordinary people, what we usually call “the people”. I am talking about politicians, businessmen and rulers. If you belong to “the people” as I do, you shouldn´t felt insulted. The same way as when you talk about Argentinians (Argie, very rude indeed) or Grease Land (ill manners, by the way), you´re being violent, impolite and childish. No need for that, isn´t it? We are adults, we are supposed to be able to debate ideas with an open mind and a genuine interest in finding the truth. But insulting people is not wise and certainly, does not help the debate. 
We (Argentinians) have been judged by the kind of rulers we have had. Unfortunately, we cannot be proud of that. But, you know, “the people” in Argentina are not like that. It´s amazing how many people continue being so decent and so intelligent in Argentina. And I say it is amazing because, if we considered the way we have been treated by our rulers and “foreign rulers” (such as Great Britain and USA). The level of poverty in my country is really sad, and that is why I say how amazed I am by the way my people continue reading and studying and working in such adverse conditions. We don´t deserve to be called names, as you have done. My country is full of good people, willing to have a decent life. Most of Argentinians are very generous, willing to help other people all the time. The poorest are the most generous. There is no greed in most people in my country. So, take that in consideration before insulting and estereotyping. It is not good manners and not kind of you. 
By the way, Great Britain abolished slavery when it stopped being a good business for them. At that time, they had made the industrial revolution, and they needed markets for their manufactures, so they pressed other countries to abolish the system they had created, because slaves could not buy manufactures, but poor workers could. 
A good way to understand history is through films and literature, even when there are fictional aspects, the main ideas are worthy. I can imagine you have seen the firm Ghandi or you have read Charles Dickens (one of my favourite authors). I could give you a list of recommended films and books. Through them, you can understand that British rulers have not been any saints. In the past,they were cruel with their own society, treating the poor worse than animals (as described in Dickens´ books). And in India, they have been even worse. Then, I cannot be proud of Argentine history, but certainly British people can´t, either. But, instead of focusing on who is worse, why don´t we help to build a better world. A world with no imperialism, where human beings can respect other human beings, no matter their nationality, religion, race, social status. If you continue talking about the argie and grese land, that “better world” is made an impossible dream. You do not know us (Argentinians). I can assure there are a lot of amazing people here. Some of them are real heroes and heroines. Because, even when our country has been so punished and our people suffer the consequences of poverty, they never stop believing in work and study. Many of us, speak several languages and have read hundreds of books, and are always willing to learn with an open mind and with humility. Our young people are a real treasure. They don´t deserved to be called the way you do. I believe in respect and education. I believe that people should care about people, no matter where they live. I believe in helping others and not cousing damage to anyone. That is why I am against imperialism and violence. So, please, be reasonable and don´t be aggressive. There is no good in that behavior.

Mar 09th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

LIKE I HAVE SAID BEFORE raurie and Co: Brits, GO HOME!!! 
LEAVE THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVES HERE!! 
WE DO NOT NEED THE BRITS OR ANY EUROPEAN AROUND !!! 
LEAVE US ALONE!!!!! 
your rairie, will you like that Argentina mess around the orkneys or some others island close to Scotlnad?/ 
NO!! 
And I agree with you!! 
Every frog to his own pond!! 
YOU ARE A NORTH ATLANTIC NATION!! 
LEAVE THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR US TO MANAGE AND ENJOY!!! 
OF COURSE I INCLUDE THE FALKLANDERS AS OUR FRIENDS AND PARTNERS IN THIS ADVENTURE!! 
GET OUT BRITS OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC!! 
EVERY SOUTH AMERICAN NATION TOLD YOU IN ONE VOICE:GET OUT AND LEAVE THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LEAVE HERE!! 
BRITS GO HOME!! 
THIS IS NOT YOUR HOME AND NEVER WILL BE!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 04:03 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Monica aprecio tu respuesta, pero no te gastes mucho con estos imperialistas.
gb esta fundida!!!
O sea no esta en el 3 mundo sino en el cuarto.
La deuda que tienen es impagable!!
Argentina esta mucho mejor!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 04:08 pm - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

what are you blathering on about, why would I care about a Borough in New York? 
Your the one making the fuss, your the one denying free trade and access, Argentinas protests bickers and whines every time an international body recognises the Islands, you even sent a diplomatic protest when they joined the International Bouls Union! 
Absolutely nothing happened in 1833 “Mod”, except an illegal buissness venture was dismantled. 
 
economically you are on par with many 3rd countries, face it, 
Argentina is less socially and economically and politically developed than it's neighbours, who in the past it riducled and boasted to about how great it was, tables are turned now, now indigenous and metizos who dominate your neighbours have put white european Argentina to shame. 
This is not a lie but a fact, you don't need to be black and living in a mud hut to be third world, economist told me, it's a very intellectually stimulating monthly magazine with experts from around the world contributing. 
 
How were you a Banana republic, how did we rule you, prey do tell? 
 
Chile's economy is doing very well, they do NOT grow fruits, sheesh look up Chiles economic facts, agriculture and mining account for only 13 % of their GDP. their GDP $10,000, yours $8,000 thats down almost $4,000 in the last decade!! 
 
I doubt the almighty has any interest in the bickering of humans estevez, if the antichrist is born to europeans and he will punish them handsomely, you will be next on his shopping list for the crimes the Argentine nation comitted in the name of civillization in Patagonia 
 
Brit Justice in diego Garcia, two high court rulings condeming the Governemt....Iraq A dictator overthrown, a relatively stable multi representational democracy, Afghanistan, the overthrow of a regime that mutilated women killed nearly 1 million of it's own people and brought the country back to the stone age in the name of “God”, a multi representational government, relatively stability the first the country has experienced in over 30 years. 
 
Thats to be decided but perhaps yes, IL is not defined on the issue of invasion and occupation, seeing as it was not condemmed nor condoned by the UN general assembly, it's hard to say it was a crime. 
However your Invasion in 1982 was deemed a crime, full condemnation from the General Assembly as you JAJAJAJAJAJA

Mar 09th, 2010 - 04:10 pm - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

LIKE I HAVE SAID BEFORE raurie and Co: Brits, GO HOME

I am home, I haven't left

LEAVE THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LIVES HERE!!!

we will only leave when the Falklanders want us to, we are there at their requests.
WE DO NOT NEED THE BRITS OR ANY EUROPEAN AROUND !!

But they need us to protect them
from you

LEAVE US ALONE!!!!

Leave them alone, we aren't bothering you at all, most of these disputes are Argentinas own making, mountain out of a molehill is very relevant here.

your rairie, will you like that Argentina mess around the orkneys or some others island close to Scotlnad?

Seeing as the majority of Islanders in Orkneys and Shetlands wish to be Scottish, yes I would, if they didn't I wouldn't care, the Faroe Islands 50 miles north of them are Danish do I care, it's their choice.

Every frog to his own pond!!

Falkland Islanders to Falklands then!

YOU ARE A NORTH ATLANTIC NATION!!

With people who we have a vested duty to protect, I'm sorry but we can't just go chucking people around like chess pieces because you want their land, you agree with me that Diego Garcia was a terrible thing? So why do you wish for exactly the same thing over the Falklands, for us to ignore self determination.

LEAVE THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR US TO MANAGE AND ENJOY!!!

we do, the Falklanders manage and enjoy their region, we just protect their rights from you.

OF COURSE I INCLUDE THE FALKLANDERS AS OUR FRIENDS AND PARTNERS IN THIS ADVENTURE!!

well then you better get talking to them instead of bullying and demonising them.

EVERY SOUTH AMERICAN NATION TOLD YOU IN ONE VOICE:GET OUT AND LEAVE THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FOR THE PEOPLE WHO LEAVE HERE!!

No they didn't, they expressed concern that drilling might result in strained diplomatic tensions in the region, so far we have plastic face Krichener kicking up a fuss, Baboon chavez doing his usual hoots, and be bopa Lula getting the UK mixed up with the english Football, not exactly one big voice?

THIS IS NOT YOUR HOME AND NEVER WILL BE!!

One can't you get it that we are only there at the islanders request?? Those are the Islanders homes, not yours, not Britains they want to stay associated with the UK, fine whats the probelem? The only reason there is British military harware in the region is because of 1982. Those are the only Brits you will find, the ones protecting the islanders

Hold you horses Monica, I will get back to you, there is a mountain of Shite in there I need to wade through, your generalisation of england and english people and other people is horribly insulting and a henious insult to history.

Mar 09th, 2010 - 04:26 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Let see the supine ignorant, imperialist liar of raurie: 
Absolutely nothing happened in 1833 “Mod”, except an illegal buissness venture was dismantled. 
 
Yes you have kicked an appointed governor and international jurist, said that the ilegal invasion was agains the law,, See Brit Historian Peter Beck. 
WAS ILLEGAL, PUNK, specially after signing the friendship and comerce treaty of 1825 with Argentina. 
Let see Vernet had about 500,000 sheeps and about 3,000 horses. 
of course the brit pirates never paid such thing. 
The colony was a very flurishing one, except when the americans destroyed it. 
Not contemp sufficiently, the brit imperialist blocked the river plate and engage in another imperialistic war. 
 
 
No they didn't, they expressed concern that drilling might result in strained diplomatic tensions in the region, so far we have plastic face Krichener kicking up a fuss, Baboon chavez doing his usual hoots, and be bopa Lula getting the UK mixed up with the english Football, not exactly one big voice? 
No the document plus the Lula statement, that brit has no rigth to be in the S Atlantic 
Here a re the two documents, baboon raurie: Showed to your chief imperialist baboon brown: 
1 Document:Las Jefas y los Jefes de Estado y de Gobierno de América latina y el Caribe, reuniones en la ‘Cumbre de la Unidad ’, reafirman su respaldo a los legítimos derechos de la República Argentina en la disputa de soberanía con el Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte relativa a la `Cuestión de las Islas Malvinas´. 
 
“Recuerdan el interés regional en que los gobiernos de la República Argentina y del Reino Unido de Gran Bretaña e Irlanda del Norte reanuden las negociaciones a fin de encontrar a la mayor brevedad posible una solución justa, pacífica y definitiva en la disputa de soberanía sobre las Islas Malvinas, Georgicas del Sur y Sandwich del Sur y los espacios marítimos circundantes, de conformidad con las resoluciones y declaraciones pertinentes de las Naciones Unidas y de la Organización de los Estados Americanos. 
 
“Expresan, además, en relación con el Tratado de Lisboa por el que se modifican el tratado de la Unión Europea y el Tratado Constitutivo de la Comunidad Europea , que la intrusión de las Islas Malvinas, Georgicas del Sur y Sandwich del Sur en el régimen de “Asociación de los Países y Territoros de Ultramar” resulta incompatible con los legítimos derechos de la República Argentina y con la existencia de una disputa de soberanía sobre dichos archipiélagos 
2 Document:persistente accionar unilateral británico en materia de exploración y explotación de hdirocarburos en el área de la plataforma continental argentina. 
One recognize the legitimate rigth of Argentina to malvinas. 
2. Condemn the unilateral explotation of hydrocarbons. 
Will stop lying raurie. 
The documents is firm about the legitimate Argentine rigths in the South Atlantic. 
Brit Justice in diego Garcia, two high court rulings condeming the Governemt, still they could not return home, as usual the brit word is worth nothing. 
Like the 1825 treaty of friendship and comerce with Argentina. 
By the way, liar, ignorant raurie: In WWII, Argentina sent about 5,000 volunters to help brittain figth the Axis power.We had also the RAF 164 Argentine -british squadron. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._164_Squadron_RAF 
So this is the way that the brits traitors pay us back! 
Thanks uk. 
 
ANOTHER LIE OF THE BRIT PUNK: 
Argentina is less socially and economically and politically developed than it's neighbours, who in the past it riducled and boasted to about how great it was, tables are turned now, now indigenous and metizos who dominate your neighbours have put white european Argentina to sham 
EXCEPT THAT 1/2 million chileans live in Argentina, about 1 million Uruguayan, 1.5 million Paraguayan, and about 1 million bolivian. 
Argentina is such a 3 world country, that we had to put fee in Argentines hospitals so the chileans do not use them for free. 
Also they study in the university for free. 
Oh and also about 1 million from the british isles 
 
Let see, Argentina a 3 world country: 
 
Australia wanted to replace the aging brit reactor, called international bid:Argentina the winner. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No._164_Squadron_RAF 
Let see Argentina 3 world country??? 
This year crop of grain, about 95 million tons. 
Soybean production about 56 millions, population 42 million 
US soybean production: 72 million, population 300 million 
When will stop confusing and liyng??? 
Really your posting are very shameful!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 06:11 pm - Link - 0

-+

JustinKuntz

Mmm, sctually the ignorance is breath taking.

Vernet didn't have any sheep. The main source of income was dried fish and seal skins. Sheep were introduced into the Falklands in 1852. Peter Beck's opinion that you're so keen on quoting is out of date and did not consider all relevant documents, for example the 1850 Convention of Settlement.

Whether Vernet's colony was “successful” is a matter of debate. He claimed it was successful, he claimed the Americans destroyed it. The American captain makes it plain he destroyed guns and a powder store and nothing else. The population were grateful for the chance to leave, claiming Vernet had greatly mislead them.

And Vernet accepted a full and final settlement from the British for the horses he took to the islands, the British Government also honoured his promissory notes.

Argentina didn't send anyone, it supported the Axis Powers till late in the war, then switched sides and declared war just before the German collapse. Volunteers did fly for the RAF, volunteering was technically illegal in Argentina.

Mar 09th, 2010 - 06:32 pm - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

The question is Justin, where do I begin? It's going to be a long night :)

Mar 09th, 2010 - 06:56 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Hmmm Justin and raurie.. better you go to sleep, since your intervention is really useless.
One thing is to have an opinion and another is to be a liar.
Lets see, no sheeps, this was the inventory of Vernet, prior to the destruction of the yanks.
Sorry I made a mistaque in the number of sheeps, it should say about 5,000.
Was introduced in 1823, with a stock of 2,000 merino sheeps
by 1829 the stock was:Hay en las islas 5.000 porcinos, 3.000 equinos, 2.000 bovinos y una cantidad indeterminada de ovinos
3,000 Horses, 5,000 pigs and 2,000 cows.

http://www.terragno.org.ar/pdfs/Proyecto%20Nacionalidad%20Malvinas.pdf

Will you stop lying, guys.
And Argentina was neutral in the war, because it was the most convenient for uk and USA. since they wanted to be fed by the Argentines, or never tried Argentinian corned beef ,punks??

And Peter Beck considered those documents, because was to put an end to your ilegal imperialist attack on the Argentine rivers, they say nothing about the Malvinas!
You people are really pathetic!!
NO WONDER uk IS BANKRUPT!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 08:34 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

However your Invasion in 1982 was deemed a crime, full condemnation from the General Assembly as you JAJAJAJAJAJA

JAJAJAJ, uk has veto power in the SC, that is the reason we should revoke the power of uk and propel Brazil in the SC.
By the way punks, did you read the NAZI IMPERIALIST DOCUMENT I POSTED THE LINK?
SO THEY WANT to control the DRAKE PASAGE, iS not under Argentinian Juridiccion??
ONE MORE REASON TO OUST THE ILLEGAL uk , PATHETIC FROM THE SC, .
I DO NOT TRUST THE brits!!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 08:58 pm - Link - 0

-+

JustinKuntz

Nope, there was a feral population of pigs, goats and cattle on the islands. A common practise in the 17th and 18th Century was to release farm animals to form a feral population on remote islands to provide a ready source of fresh meat. They were not the property of Vernet, nor were they placed on the islands by Vernet.

Vernet's only resource to transport material was a single sailing vessel, it was simply impossible to have transported the animals you claimed.

A flock of 2000 sheep? So how were they transported, oh deary me?

No mention of sheep, the Cheviot sheep was introduced into the Falklands in 1852. A fact easily checked.

Argentina was “neutral” in the second world war, actually an axis supporter, not for any other reason. Even then Peron was an admirer of Fascism and Mussolini/Hitler. Nice coal scuttle helmets your guys still wear.

1850 Convention of Settlement

“” Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Excellency the Governor and Captain General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both governments, and the government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate as recognized by treaty, have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz :

Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, Henry Southern Esq., Her Majesty's Minister Plenipotentiary accredited to the Court of Buenos Ayres ; —

and His Excellency the Governor and Captain General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, His Excellency the .Minister of foreign affairs, Doctor Don Felipe Arana, — ”

Mmm, it seems like its Argentina that settles matters only to raise them again, that invades a peaceful island community for no reason other than macho pride and blames everyone else for a misfortune of its own making.

Mar 09th, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Justin: Will you ever grow??
If your ignorance does not allow you to read Spanish is your problem.
The transport ship, for a close distance was not a problem at that time.
And yes those were the animals.
The settlement again was to put an end to your imperialist harasment, to a country for which you had very strong economics and political ties.
What a friendly country!!!
NO MENTION ABOUT MALVINAS!!!
ONLY IN YOUR IMAGINATION FLIES THERE.
Look justin, the more I know about the history of lies and harasment by uk the more I detest your country.
And really, 3 years ago I did not know that much about the Malvinas, until I started to dig and consult.
The brits have only showed to me their very weak arguments
The only thing I WANT IS : GET OUT OF THE SOUTH ATLANTIC!!
LEAVE US ALONE!!!

Mar 09th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - 0

-+

monica

Tte Estevez: Estoy sorprendida por el odio que esta gente le tiene a los argentinos y por lo poco que saben de historia mundial. 
Evidentemente, el imperio británico ha hecho bien “los deberes”, y a través de su sistema educativo les ha pautado un tipo de aprendizaje de la historia que beneficia al imperialismo británico, la historia oficial contada por los ganadares, nunca desde la óptica de los perderores. 
Es contradictorio como por un lado reconocen que Gran Bretaña dominó tres cuartas partes del mundo, pero por el otro, son lo suficientemente “ciegos” como para evitar reconocer que ese dominio no fue pacífico y que su objetivo siempre fue extraer la máxima riqueza de las zonas que explotaron. ¿Pueden ser tan “inocentes” de creer que el imperio británico perseguía “el noble objetivo de civilizar”? 
A lo largo de la historia de los últimos siglos, el imperialismo británico causó destrozos en muchas partes del mundo. Argentina tenía economías provinciales muy prósperas en 1810, pero los poderosos intereses británicos supieron tejer sus hilos y sacaron buen provecho del “divide y reinarás”. Si no hubiera sido por sus lobbistas británicos de la época, los países latinoamericanos hubieramos tenido otra suerte. Hubieramos sido una gran nación. Pero Gran Bretaña tenía que vender sus manufacturas a cualquier precio. El precio que pagó la Argentina fue la pérdida de las economías regionales que no pudieron competir con las manufacturas inglesas que abarrotaban los mercados. Lo triste es que nos obligaban a venderles la materia prima y a comprarles las manufacturas a precios desorbitantes. Por supuesto, que ellos no son los únicos culpables, nuestras oligarquías vendepatria se enriquecieron mucho con esta alianza económica con los ingleses. Nuestra historia está llena de enriquecimiento de los ingleses a costilla del pueblo argentino: el negocio de los frigoríficos, el de los ferrocarriles, los préstamos pedidos por Rivadavia, etc, etc. 
Pero, ¿qué sentido tiene explicarselo a esta gente tan racista e imperialista? No sé cómo hace usted para soportar los insultos. Yo por mi parte, me retiro del debate, porque ante tanta mente cerrada, no tiene sentido. No leen ni quieren leer. Y es verdad, nosotros manejamos idiomas y ellos no. Será por eso que hemos podido leer desde la óptica de distintos autores en diferentes culturas. En cambio, los británicos parecen vivir en una burbuja creada por ellos, y dominada por la fantasía de que son civilizados y queridos en todo el mundo. Sinceramente, no conozco a nadie que quiera a los británicos, y eso que conozco mucha gente que vive en otros países de Europa. En EEUU se burlan todo el tiempo de ellos. Qué pena que no puedan salir de su burbuja y ver qué pasa en el mundo. Después se sorprenden con los atentados terroristas. Obviamente, no justifico ningún atentado. No estoy de acuerdo con la violencia. Pero, ¿cómo pueden creer que la gente los ama? ¿Qué beneficio le han dado a la humanidad, más que el recuerdo de la piratería, el saqueo , la invasión y la explotación de recursos humanos y económicos? 
Suerte con el debate, yo me retiro, no pienso seguir leyendo tanta calamidad. No tenía idea que había gente tan racista. Qué triste!!!

Mar 10th, 2010 - 02:19 am - Link - 0

-+

Hoytred

I seem to recall that Vernet asked for British permission BEFORE he went to the Falkland Islands. He obviously recognised who the owners were! What he took with him therefore becomes irrelevant. Would this be why the Argentine Government doesn't tend to push the frenchman Vernet as part of their claim??

The 1850 Convention stated that NO matters were in dispute. A pretty clear indication that EVERYTHING had been sorted and Agentine claims to the islands were then dropped.

Mar 10th, 2010 - 02:38 am - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Show me that document of Vernet asking permision(no wiki please) 
You had a stroger document by 1825, of friendship and commerce, with a country like Argentina that never, ever bother you. 
You had strong economics and political ties with Argentina. 
Argentina never consider brittain a foe. 
The invasion and expulsion of the people in 1833 was no doubt an act of supine illegality, against a friend nation 
Ask a lawyer about that. 
There had been several people of law that analyzed that fact. 
It was to put and end, for the continuos harasment, agains a friend nation. 
REALLY YOU BRITS, THE MORE I KNOW ABOUT YOU, THE MORE I HATE YOUR CULTURE!! 
WILL YOU PEOPLE EVER STOP LIYING??? 
YOU ARE A TOTALLY UNDESERVING FRIEND!!

Mar 10th, 2010 - 03:16 am - Link - 0

-+

BigVince

Was some intresting stuff in here to read, took a while.

At the end of the day if the islanders want to be british then it is there choice. Britian will protect there right to be british and if that means defending the islands again then so be it. But I can assure you that no matter how much talk there is in an court or assembly until the Islanders decide other wise the Falklands are british soil.

Mar 10th, 2010 - 03:59 am - Link - 0

-+

Hoytred

Estevez - see http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Maybe you'll learn something, although you won't like it.

Mar 10th, 2010 - 05:23 am - Link - 0

-+

JustinKuntz

Oh dear, in a ship that could transport at most 50 pigs, and took lets say a week to get there and and a week to get back, (350 nm @ 2-5 knots). It would take 200 weeks or about 3.8 years to transport 5000 pigs. Vernet's settlement lasted from 1828 till 1831, in actual fact about 18 months

Where in the 1825 Treaty of Friendship does it say that Britain abandons its sovereignty, and where does it say that a friendly nation gets to ignore repeated protests about assertions of sovereignty

It does say specifically in the 1850 Convention of Settlement:

“being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship”

Note the phrase “existing differences”, Argentina and the UK drew a line under the past. Argentina gave up its claim to the Falklands in 1850, something that little document you brandished earlier glossed over.

And 1833, was neither an invasion, nor was the settlement established by Vernet expelled. Those are lies, you've been lied to.

Tell me, if the settlement was expelled, how come its still there in March of 1833 when the Beagle with Charles Darwin on board visits, and still there in 1834 when the Beagle visits for the 2nd time. How come members of the settlement are still there in 1850 and one Antonina Roxas went on to become a major land owner in Stanley. How come Gov. Moody records the sad passing of Manuel Coronel in 1841, considered one of the most important figures in the early settlement.

The diaries of Darwin and Fitzroy are online, http://darwin-online.org.uk/, you can of course check for yourself.

Anyone give me odds that he'll refuse?

Mar 10th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - 0

-+

jorge!

Totally agree with Tte Estevez. It's a shame, British people who show up here are the worst. Nice british people are those who recognize what kind of country they have thanks to their goverment and understand why they are so hated around the world.

Some british likes to talk about “macho” all the time. It seems to me he is looking for one for his own satisfaccion.

Mar 10th, 2010 - 12:00 pm - Link - 0

-+

M

Jorge I can say the same, why do the worst Argentines show up on here? Why do Argentines simply ignore the facts? Why do Argentines have such an inflated impression of Argentina's power? Argentina cant even get 3,000 people to submitt to their wishes!

Mar 10th, 2010 - 01:57 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

hoytred:Estevez - see http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Maybe you'll learn something, although you won't like it.

Yes hoytred, I have read before and I do not like it;Is an absolute lie!!

Mar 10th, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - 0

-+

Tte Estevez

Tell me, if the settlement was expelled, how come its still there in March of 1833 when the Beagle with Charles Darwin on board visits, and still there in 1834 when the Beagle visits for the 2nd time. How come members of the settlement are still there in 1850 and one Antonina Roxas went on to become a major land owner in Stanley. How come Gov. Moody records the sad passing of Manuel Coronel in 1841, considered one of the most important figures in the early settlement 
Still those settlers could not decide to be free from the brits. 
I bet if they put the Blue/White flag and told the King of England to go to hell, they will be put in jail! 
Rigth 
Selfdetermination....PFFFF

Mar 10th, 2010 - 04:51 pm - Link - 0

-+

globetrotter

I registered here, hoping to find possitive discussion and opinion, with the possibility of perhaps contributing my thoughts here or there. what I've encountered is a bunch of hard bitten self opinioned, so called intelectual radicals on both sides, not willing to give and take a shred of anything. What a bunch of short- sighted, indoctrinated jerks you are. Considering the length of commentaries makes me think that this is your hobby. If you happen to be doing this during working hours then, you cant be doing your job, that means if I was your boss, I would fire you outright. If you work in a ministry then what the f%$§ are you paid for???? Of the 68 comments passed, there are only 2 comments worth reading : 36 & 58

Mar 10th, 2010 - 05:37 pm - Link - 0

-+

JustinKuntz

As I expected no response, in the blink of an eye ignoring the obvious fact that what Argentina claims is a lie, I guess I win £5.

Mar 10th, 2010 - 09:51 pm - Link - 0

-+

Deebee

Looking back at the past and arguing how many sheep were on the island is irrelevent...what matters now is not the past, but the future. 
 
A diplomatic solution for all parties must be found, but as it is we have two desperate nations standing their ground and not giving an inch...With a substantial prize of xxmillion barrels of oil on the line. And like two prized fighters slugging it out for a world title belt, neither wants to share it... 
 
Argentina has to drop its claims on the Falklands/Malvinas, and move forward so that she can can share the profit in the future 
 
As for British brutality and all the above that this nation has been blamed for in the above articles...had the Spanish Armada defeated them would they of created a utopian world where people lived in harmony, i think not. The past is the past, its time people realised that and look to how we can change the future

Mar 11th, 2010 - 12:39 am - Link - 0

-+

jwlstamps

Well, after all that, one wonders what would happen to the Falklanders under Argentine rule?

Mar 11th, 2010 - 08:43 am - Link - 0

-+

Noreen

This is not a useful conversation, but a dialogue of deaf people...why and how everybody mounts in a high horse and begins attacking the other? The Falklands affair always produces a visceral nationalism very difficult to control, and thus clouding any reasoning that would help understand/heal the division. I shudder thinking of a real confrontation between Falklanders and Argentinians without a frame that says: NO insults, NO attacks, listen to each other.... 
We have produced some times this conversation at 
www.falklands-malvinas.com/forum....

Mar 11th, 2010 - 04:55 pm - Link - 0

-+

JustinKuntz

1888?

What has that got to do with 1983?

The reason why this never goes anywhere is clear, you don't want to listen. Its always someone else's fault, Argentina is incapable of accepting the culpability for its own actions.

You signed the Convention of Settlement in 1850, there was nothing to settle. But Britain still sat down and tried in the 20th Century to find a solution.

So why is Argentina so 'fraid of the ICJ. Any chance of an answer?

Mar 11th, 2010 - 08:53 pm - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

Monica, after carefully considering your opinion, I have decided to ignore the vast majority of it on practical grounds, I could debate with you endlessly about the pros and cons of the Empire and address many of you false biased and in most cases horrifyingly Anglophobic opinion, but this is not the time nor place to do it. 
 
I will also identify a very dumbfounding piece of your rant where you complained about the English stealing your gold and silver, surely wasn't this gold and silver plundered first by the Spanish from the Incas and Aztecs? This piss poor statement reafirmed my beleifs that you are motivated by a baffling hatred of England, rather than a desire to seek an endgame to the current situation. 
 
My main point though overall is what does the sins of empire have to do with the wishes of the Falklands? what does Slavery and the days of the Raj have to with the current determination of Argentina with the tacit support of it's people to ignore self determination of the islanders, I would say nothing. 
 
To date I have seen no coherent arguement as to why they should be denied what are universal Human rights, this seems to me morally un-defensible, why should Argentina use the sins of the past to justify the Sins of the present? 
 
Look it this way how does annexation of 4,000 peaceful islanders against their own will when you have invaded them in the past look on the international stage? 
This is not any colonial dispute, we are not dealing with opressed people under foreign domination by an alien power indifferent to their human rights, we are dealing with a people who consider themselves not be a colonial people, but consider you to be an agressive uncaring bully of a neighbour. 
 
Sadly I'm inclined to think the same thing, all I see are kittens mewing trying to justify turning peoples lives up side down for what? a 180 year old slight of national ego. get real please, you justifying Imperialism under the guise of anti-Imperialism. I'm sorry but this just isn't your leaders, this is an underlying probelem in Argentine society, 100 upon thousands of people in 1982 baying for the blood of Falklanders and British marines in plaza mayo this is not just your leaders i'm afraid, this is a huge problem that is underlying Argentine society. 
 
Argentina has never offered anything, just annexation and control against the peoples wishes, how can this be a democratic mandate to rule the islands?

Mar 12th, 2010 - 03:52 pm - Link - 0

-+

Rhaurie-Craughwell

Tsk Tsk Noreen and Golbetrotter telling us of for jumping on our high horses, then doing it yourself and galloping of into the distance before we can hold you claims to account?

why bother if we deaf people are not worth your time?

PS deaf people can read very well,

PS Globe trotter, it's 4pm in the afternoon on a Friday I think some of us have finished work or studies! Opinion noted and discarded, come back with something coherent.

Mar 12th, 2010 - 04:01 pm - Link - 0

-+

MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

What can Argentina gain from another Falklands dispute?

Comments