MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands: Taiana certain UK will understand it must sit to negotiate
Argentine Foreign Affairs minister Jorge Taiana said on Thursday that there has been progress in creating the “political and diplomatic conditions” for the United Kingdom to understand the need for negotiations on the Falkland Islands sovereignty. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“We are advancing towards creating political and diplomatic conditions so that finally the United Kingdom understands that it must comply with United Nations mandates and sit down to negotiate with Argentina”
Mar 19th, 2010 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think that's politik-speak for “nothing is happening” ?
“We are most sure about our legal position regarding sovereignty over the Islands, and the Falklands government is very sure about what they are doing exploring for oil”
I think that's politik-speak for “sod off”
UN Mandates? resolutions not Mandates Senor Taiana!
Mar 19th, 2010 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does mister Taiana envisage the Falklands sitting down to these mythical negotiations as well?
I think not? In that case we won't sit our hands our tied, our obligations to our citizens there are thus, no negotiation.
Perhaps if Taiana were to speak directly to the Falklanders first, then perhaps he will get somehwere, I doubt he will I doubt Argentina will, to do so would destroy their whole, “You're not allowed Self determination” arguement!
I'b say leave Taiana and Sejnorita Plastic face in a locked room with the Falklanders and not let them out till they finally recognise that they are dealing with human beings here, not sub-human peicese of Garbage who can be exchanges as easily as money.
Perhaps Taiana should consult (and abide by) the Charter of the United Nations - seeing as he's so keen on using the UN for this ridiculous claim!
Mar 19th, 2010 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 1, section 2:
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;
I am really starting to believe the Argentinean people are Brainwashed!
...........“I am really starting to believe the Argentinean people are Brainwashed!”.........
Mar 19th, 2010 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Get some fresh air. My brain could be healthier than yours.
Mr. Taiana, well said, these disgusting people will understand one day, so do squaters!
Mar 19th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge perhaps offer something a bit more compelling than “Squatters” you know it's not an internationally recognised definition for people?
Mar 19th, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Meanwhile the rest of the world evolves in a natural manner based upon the universal application of human rights and moral standards.......
Jorge: Perhaps you will enlighten us. Why did you chose to ignore my section on the Charter of the UN and instead focus on “my” off-the-cuff comment? Perhaps the Charter of the UN does not interest you? ONLY respond if making a statement about the Charter of the UN (specifically the section I have posted).
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0comment 7. I'm more interested in terretorial integrity right. Do you know it????
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British people talking about moral. That's bizarre!!!!!!
jorge wrote “British people talking about moral. That's bizarre!!!!!!”
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinean people trying to claim the moral high ground. Now that IS bizarre!!!!!
Argentina claims its land, nothing more. We never bothered you, go away pirates!
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you christine, study a little, just a little, I'm not asking you to get a ph.D. lol
Jorge wrote “Argentina claims its land, nothing more.”
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are trying to claim land that isn't yours. Why are you trying to undertake an act of colonialism in the 21st century?
Jorgelina wrote “And you christine, study a little, just a little, I'm not asking you to get a ph.D. lol”
Oh dear. If only you knew;-)
Christine UK, ph.D in piracy in the 21st century.
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are entertaining yourself with my comments while are being made a cuckold. lol. All the brits behind a computer are the same wan*ers!!!
Jorge wrote - nothing of importance today.;-)
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”We have no doubts about our sovereignty, if not we would be involved in international lobbying. And since there are no doubts we do not need any lobbying and we don’t want to raise our voice” Well said Mr Bryant
Mar 19th, 2010 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That really needed repeating. It is true that Argentina is only involved in lobbying because it has doubts over its claim.
comment 20, i hope you are not a good old catholic argie, thats blasphemy surely......you will be going to hell, bad boy, smack smack
Mar 19th, 2010 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - why have you posted the above in 19 and 23? What does this prove? Not what you think it proves that is for sure.
Mar 19th, 2010 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As to making advances upon my partner. She laughed and said that she isn't interested in boys like yourself, as she prefers real men. So sorry mate, she isn't interested and sent the flowers back.
Now Jorge - you are keen to insult at every opportunity but, now that you have found out that anyone can insult, will you try to actually debate instead of falling back upon insults?
Mar 19th, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to test him. May be he was fathered by an argentinian. lol
Mar 19th, 2010 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said to you a WHILE AGO: Recognize that i did not insult you in another site and I will stop insulting you. If you read carefully, You'll see I don't insult anyone.
Jorge wrote “I said to you a WHILE AGO: Recognize that i did not insult you in another site”
Mar 19th, 2010 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - I will say again. I never said that you insulted me on ANOTHER site. I said that you insulted me on THIS site. Stop trying to change the goalposts when you are shown to be in the wrong.
Jorge wrote “ nd I will stop insulting you.”
Jorge - I couldn't care less if you continue to insult me or not. You are missing your target by a mile and besides, given that you resort to insulting virtually everyone I am sure that I cannot expect to be made an exception.
Jorge wrote “If you read carefully, You'll see I don't insult anyone.”
You insult at every opportunity. Look at this page alone and you will see plenty of examples of your pathetic little insults. It is but self delusion on your part to say otherwise - as any person reading the Mercopress forums can see for themselves.
You do yourself no favours Jorge. We all can insult - as you have seen - the thing is, as can be seen from your posts, you can dish it out but you cannot take it. That is why you end up hurting yourself and no one else.
So, do yourself a favour and stop it and try debating instead.
Jorge wrote “You need to test him. May be he was fathered by an argentinian. lol”
Mar 19th, 2010 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is doubtful Jorge - you all fire blanks;-)
jorge, shutt up boy, your a internet badman, in person you are probably like the rest of those argies, big curly hair, that gormless look slapped all over your face, you think you know about history but what history, your country has been around for about 200 years, you dont have any history, your basicly still a caveman in clothes, your brainwashed by your president, who by the way looks like her face is made of plastic. your so far up your own dirty arse that you really beleive the sh*t coming out of yor mouth. what are you going to do jorge, sereously? what you gona do? you going to take back the islands yourself? NO, you take up arms and fight us? NOO, your going to sit there and cry all day long on the internet like the little boy your proving yourself to be, you got a problem? do something about it, please,
Mar 19th, 2010 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you see, we were on the islands before the argentine race existed, your decendents of spanish settlers, you dont even have a legitimete claim to your own country, never mind the FALKLANDS,
jorge you silly cunt i would hedbutt you once and you would fall on the floor crying, MR INTERNET, thats you isnt it, your a big man on the internet, your nothing, your probably pulling your curly hair out your head with rage arnt you? come on jorge, dooo something? go on, you can do it, show your courage? HAHAHAHAAAA your gona do nothing, because you cant, you stupid argentine cunt, your delusional, the falklands are ours, hahahahaa, they are just there, you can probably see them, but you cant touch them, because there ours, you want to insult these people when there trying to have a debate, well im hear to insult you, you fucking wanker, i can send you some sand from the islands if you want, just so you can have a feel of them, would you like that?
Mar 19th, 2010 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorgina wrote ”Christine, as I said, I've never insulted you in ANOTHER site, nor in THIS one. I asked you to prove it months ago and you couldn't. FACT!
Mar 19th, 2010 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet your insults are there for all to see. Only today you have tried to insult me rather than debate. People only have to read your posts to see that you try to insult all and sundry. That is a FACT . Your attempts to deny are funny and make you look rather stupid. Why you carry on is up to you I suppose.
Poor Jorge, proves again over and over he's a real che idiot. Laugh.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0I've tried to come up with a set of notable dates to assist the thick - yes Jorge! it's you I'm thinking of. Hope this helps. Any comments from the reasonable would be welcome.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 01690 – the waterway between the two islands is named ‘Falkland Sound’ by Captain John Strong from the ship Welfare.
1712 – the name ‘Falkland Islands’ is used in a publication describing the Welfare’s journey.
1716 – a French map refers to the islands as ‘Les Isles Nouvelles’.
1722 – a new French map refers to the islands as ‘Les Iles Malouines’.
1764 – France founds a settlement on the Falkland Islands at Port Loius but makes no formal claim.
1765 - Britain claims the Falkland Islands and founds a settlement at Port Egmont.
1767 – Spain takes over Port Louis and compensates the French (buys it?)
1770 – Spain discovers the Port Egmont settlement, attacks it and ejects the settlers.
1771 - England & Spain come close to war. Spain backs down and the British return to Port Egmont . Spain also maintains the settlement at Port Louis (renamed Puerto Soledad). Neither side relinquish their sovereignty claims.
1774 – Britain evacuates the islands due to the political unrest in North America, leaving behind a plaque clearly stating its claim to the islands.
1775 – Britain claims sovereignty over South Georgia following the first landing by Captain James Cook.
1805 – Spanish maps start to refer to the islands as the ‘Malvinas’.
1811 - Spain evacuates the islands due to unrest in its colonies. It also leaves a plaque stating its claim.
1820 – the pirate/privateer David Jewett reaches the islands after a unrewarding expedition to prey on Spanish ships. Jewett ‘claims’ the islands for Argentina in November but fails to inform Buenos Aries. He does however give a letter containing the claim to a fellow Captain.
1821 – Jewett seizes a US ship, the Rampart, in an act of piracy. Jewett then leaves the islands. Jewett’s letter is published in London. There are no diplomatic relations between
Britain and Argentina at this time and Buenos Aries makes no official announcement.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 01824 - Luis Vernet (a Frenchman born in Germany) sends an expedition to the islands to hunt wild cattle and seals. Although requested he is not given any official title. The expedition failes.
1826 - Vernet goes to the islands in an attempt to recoup his losses.
1828 - Vernet claims the Falkland Islands for Argentina (still unrecognised as a country by Spain) but then asks the British for permission to stay there (?). Britain objects to the claim.
1829 – Vernet is given the title of ‘civil and military commandant’ by Buenos Aries.
1831 – Vernet seizes 3 US ships which is regarded by the United States as an act of piracy. Vernet leaves the islands in November. In December the USS Lexington sails to the islands and ‘arrested’ 7 of Vernet’s crew (the Lexington raid). The prisoners and most of Vernet’s settler’s (who wish to leave) are taken from the islands. This leaves a settlement of 24 people.
1832 – Buenos Aries sends a garrison of 26 soldiers to the Falkland Islands (October). Britain protests the move. In November the garrison mutinies.
1833 – (January) the remains of the garrison is ejected by British forces. 22 of Vernet’s settlers remain and (most not having been paid) opt to do so as British subjects. In March HMS Beagle arrives with Charles Darwin aboard and Vernet sends 7 more settlers to join the others residents taking the numbers to 29. In August, following a further dispute over payment, 8 of Vernet’s workers murder 5 of their leaders. Argentina protests the British action and reiterates it’s claim to the islands at the annual ‘Message to Congress’ ( and does so every year till 1849).
1834 – Lieutenant Henry Smith is sent to the islands as the “resident naval officer” responsible for administration. He captures the murderers and sends them for trial in England.
1838 – Argentina attempts to ‘sell’ it’s claim to the Falklands in exchange for the cancelation of a
large national debt owed to Barings Bank.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 01842 – The administration is taken over by a British ‘Governor’.
1849 – The “Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship” is signed. This is a peace treaty.
1850 – Buenos Aries ratifies the treaty and makes no further claim regarding the islands via the ‘Message to Congress’ for 91 years.
1882 – the ‘Latzina’ map, financed by the Argentine Foreign Ministry and distributed to Argentine consulates worldwide, shows the Falkland Islands as NOT being part of Argentina.
1884 – Argentina protests against the actions of the USS Lexington fifty-three years earlier to the United States. The Argentine Geographical Institute puts the Falkland Islands onto a map of Argentine territory leading to protests by Britain.
1885 – Argentina’s protests regarding the actions of USS Lexington are dismissed by US President Cleveland.
1888 – Argentina protests the possession of the Falkland Islands in a letter to the British Government.
1906 – An Argentine whaling company, the “Compañia Argentina de Pesca”, takes out a lease, from Britain, over land on South Georgia (apparently Argentina bases its claim to South Georgia on this ‘lease’ ?).
1908 – Britain formally states it’s claim to the South Sandwich Islands and annexes them, together with South Georgia. Argentina registers no objection.
1941 – The Argentine President, President Roberto María Ortiz, restates Argentina’s claim in his ‘Message to Congress’.
1947 – Argentina claims South Georgia. As a result Britain offers to take the matter to the International Court of Justice. Argentina refuses.
1951 – Britain offers to take the dispute over South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the International Court of Justice. Argentina refuses.
1953 – Britain re-offers to take the dispute to the ICJ. Argentina refuses.
1954 – Britain re-offers to take the dispute to the ICJ. Argenti
1982 - military forces sent by Argentina to enforce their claim are ejected by British forces
Mar 20th, 2010 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anything I've missed ??
Oh yes .... 1816 - Argentina becomes ... Argentina ! and 1860 - Spain recognises Argentina. I must find out exactly what it recognised?
Mar 20th, 2010 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don't worry Hoytred, you won't get a response. None of them answer when the truth is put on, unless of course to shout about pirates etc. They have no factual argument to fall back on. One day they may see how brainwashed they are, but I doubt they have the capacity, lol
Mar 20th, 2010 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.........”1764 – France founds a settlement on the Falkland Islands at Port Loius but makes no formal claim.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 01765 - Britain claims the Falkland Islands and founds a settlement at Port Egmont.
1767 – Spain takes over Port Louis and compensates the French (buys it?)
1770 – Spain discovers the Port Egmont settlement, attacks it and ejects the settlers.
1771 - England & Spain come close to war. Spain backs down and the British return to Port Egmont . Spain also maintains the settlement at Port Louis (renamed Puerto Soledad). Neither side relinquish their sovereignty claims.
1774 – Britain evacuates the islands due to the political unrest in North America, leaving behind a plaque clearly stating its claim to the islands.
1775 – Britain claims sovereignty over South Georgia following the first landing by Captain James Cook.
1805 – Spanish maps start to refer to the islands as the ‘Malvinas’.
1811 - Spain evacuates the islands due to unrest in its colonies. It also leaves a plaque stating its claim.“...............
- errrrrrr you forgot something that took place in 1790
Here, take a look:
”“”“”“”“”“”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.“”“”“”“”“”“”
- So my friend, as you can see, What you claimed in 1765 was buried by this treaty and your landing in 1833 was illegal.
.........“ 1820 – the pirate/privateer David Jewett reaches the islands after a unrewarding expedition to prey on Spanish ships. Jewett ‘claims’ the islands for Argentina in November but fails to inform Buenos Aries. He does however give a letter containing the claim to a fellow Captain.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 01821 – Jewett seizes a US ship, the Rampart, in an act of piracy. Jewett then leaves the islands. Jewett’s letter is published in London. There are no diplomatic relations between Britain and Argentina at this time and Buenos Aries makes no official announcement.”...........
- Jewett's claim of sovereignty was known in the whole world because it was published in “redactor” from Cádiz in agoust 1821 and in “La Gaceta de Salem” from USA.
..........”1824 - Luis Vernet (a Frenchman born in Germany) sends an expedition to the islands to hunt wild cattle and seals. Although requested he is not given any official title. The expedition failes.
1826 - Vernet goes to the islands in an attempt to recoup his losses.”............
- errrrrr what happened in 1825????? lol
You forgot to mention (again) that year UK recognized Argentina as a Nation whitout mention argentine claim over Malvinas publicly known at the time.
So my little friend, after these things, all you have said is pure crap!
I have shown you were pirates. You are illegally there. You just mede the most disgusting thing in 1833 and refuse to recognize it.
bye Gíl!!!!!!
Err, I think you also forgot a few things Jorge. That treaty in 1790 was between Britain and Spain. It had nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina did not even exist in 1790
Mar 20th, 2010 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, and you also forget the last article in that treaty of 1790. Here, just to remind you what it said:
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.
If the treaty was between Spain and Britain. Argentina would therefore fall under the definition of “any other power”, which means as soon as Argentina landed on the Islands, the treaty no longer applied...
Ohhh I forgot, this is amazing,
Mar 20th, 2010 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you finally said........“Anything I've missed ??”.........
- I prooved you missed several things, you little kid.
............“Don't worry Hoytred, you won't get a response. None of them answer when the truth is put on, unless of course to shout about pirates etc. They have no factual argument to fall back on. One day they may see how brainwashed they are, but I doubt they have the capacity, lol”............
- I responded his crap and you cannot talk about the capacity of others since you are not capable of using a decent nickname “Nofearoftheargie”. LOL
.........“Oh yes .... 1816 - Argentina becomes ... Argentina ! and 1860 - Spain recognises Argentina. I must find out exactly what it recognised?”.........
- We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious)
..........“Err, I think you also forgot a few things Jorge. That treaty in 1790 was between Britain and Spain. It had nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina did not even exist in 1790”.........
Mar 20th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-uffff once again. The treaty only shows you had no rights. Do I have to repeat it all the time?
...........“If the treaty was between Spain and Britain. Argentina would therefore fall under the definition of “any other power”, which means as soon as Argentina landed on the Islands, the treaty no longer applied...”.........
- Argentina was not a third power and Britain does not use that argument to its claim today.
Bye for now.
Oh no, now I need a decent nickname before I can speak, so says the great and all knowing 'whoregay!' I bow to his wisdom and great knowledge of all things, or no things, cant decide....
Mar 20th, 2010 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina had an official claim on the Falklands in 1825 when Britain recognised Argentine independence? A bigger load of bull sh1t I have never seen! Jorge, you know it's not true, so stop peddling lies.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm very glad you finally admit that Argentina took their independence by force - in other words making it impossible to “inherit” anything from the Spanish.
jorge! I am checking the signatories on the Nootka Convention, can't see Argentina mentioned anywhere.
Mar 20th, 2010 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In Spains recognition of your independence in 1859 regrettably it does not specify any of the so-called inheritance factors you get so mouthy about, nor does it grant you the boundaries of the former Vice-Royalty. All in all it is a pretty vague document. Significantly it does not grant you the Falklands either. Check it out for yourself.
jorge has being doing reserch, well done jorge, you now know less than you did before, you pussy hole, you got no life jorge, you sit on this website and bitch and moan because thats all you can do, dont worry tho jorge, im not going to try and make you learn correct history because its obviouse your hed is so far gone up your arse that its pointless, your in denial, you can call us whatever u want, pirates, theifs, it dosent matter, the islands are still ours, and there is nothing you can do about it, we were there before argentina was known as a country, so your claim is non existent, if we should discuss it with anyone it should be with spain or france first, never mind aye,
Mar 20th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jorge your the typ of person that needs such a hard slap to bring you back down to reality, your acting like it was you that was there in 1833, acting like someone hurt you personally, wake the fuck up u tit your great gandperents wernt even around when all this happend, if we had taken the islands by force and massacerd everyone on it and say it was only 40 years ago, then i would accept your crying, but as you were not there, and as no one you ever knew was there, you dont have a reason to go on crying like you are, stop crying jorge, do you want a tissue, would you like me to sing you a song jorge? it goes......dontt cry for me argentina...feel better now?
Mar 20th, 2010 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0anyway we had signd agreement saying that we would share the oil with your lot, but you lot ripped it up, your loss, now you want us to discusss and negotiate, what the fuck for? whats in it for us? were sitting on maybe 60 billion barrels why the fuck would we even think about negotiating with you lot? dont be stupid
Jorge! - thankyou, you're quite right I should have included the Nootka Sound Agreement.
Mar 21st, 2010 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0However your interpretation misses the secret clause allowing either party to establish a settlement if a third party (e.g. Argentina) settles in any of the areas covered by the treaty. Vernet's establishment of a settlement clearly voids the Nootka Sound clause and entitles Britian to act.
I believe some of your own historians agree with this interpretation?
Another thought - can you inherit something by force?
Mar 21st, 2010 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Somehow I doubt it, in which case Argentina's claimed 'inheritance' from Spain would only have taken place when Spain formally recognised Argentina's independence - 1859
Having spent the last few hours considering my list of notable dates, it seems to me that the period 1790 to 1833 is the most enlightening period and that this issue didn't 'start' in 1833 but ended there!
Mar 21st, 2010 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Excuse me if I'm boring you ....
1790 – Nootka Sound Convention No.1 (The Treaty of San Lorenzo) signed by Britain and Spain. [This places limitations on settlements but also includes a clause voiding the limitations if a third party builds any settlement.]
1805 – Spanish maps start to refer to the islands as the ‘Malvinas’.
1810 – Buenos Aries forms its own ‘junta’ to pursue independence from Spain.
1811 – Spain evacuates the islands due to unrest in its colonies. It also leaves a plaque stating its claim.
1816 – United Provinces of South America formally declares independence from Spain. [Argentina would form from most, but not all, of these ‘Provinces’]
1820 – the pirate/privateer David Jewett reaches the islands after a unrewarding expedition to prey on Spanish ships. Jewett ‘claims’ the islands for Argentina in November but fails to inform Buenos Aries. He gives a letter containing the claim to a fellow Captain. [this settlement does not void the Nootka Sound Convention limitations, as per the secret clause, as Argentina is not recognized by either Spain or Britain and is therefore not a ‘third party’.]
1821 – Jewett seizes a US ship, the Rampart, in an act of piracy. Jewett then leaves the islands. Jewett’s letter is published in London. Buenos Aries makes no official announcement. [Britain has not recognized Argentina’s independence and so there are no diplomatic relations between the two countries at this time.]
1824 - Louis Vernet sends an expedition to the islands to hunt wild cattle and seals under the command of (?) Pablo Areguati. Vernet asks the Government of Buenos Aries for an official title/rank for Areguati but it is not granted. The expedition fails.
1825 – Britain recognizes Argentina’s independence from Spain.
1826 – (June) Vernet
goes to the islands in an attempt to recoup his losses.
Mar 21st, 2010 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 01828 – (January 5th) Vernet requests (and is given) a grant of land on East Falkland by the Buenos Aries Government. (January 30th) Vernet asks the British for their approval of the land grant which is signed by the Vice Consul on the 30th. Britain protests the grant of land by Buenos Aries. [On this occasion Vernet’s settlement does not void the Nootka Sound Convention limitations, as per the secret clause, because Vernet is acting in a private capacity i.e a business venture.]
1829 – (June) The Buenos Aries Government under Juan Lavelle announces the ‘Political and Military Command of the Malvinas’ and gives Vernet the title of ‘civil and military commandant’. Britain protests. [Now that Vernet is acting in an official capacity on behalf of Argentina his settlement voids the Nootka Sound Convention limitations, as per the secret clause, because Argentina is now recognized by Britain as a country and not part of Spain. This breach allows Britain to act (?) although the Lavalle government’s actions are subsequently declared null and void by the next administration in Buenos Aries]
1831 – Back on the islands, Vernet seizes three US ships accusing them of ‘illegal sealing’. This is regarded by the United States as an act of piracy. (November) Vernet leaves the islands. (December) the USS Lexington arrives in the islands and ‘arrests’ 7 of Vernet’s crew [the Lexington raid]. The prisoners and some settlers leave with the Americans. Remaining is a settlement of 24 people.
1832 – (August) The Admiralty in London issue orders for the islands to be visited annually to reinforce British rights and prevent foreign forces establishing themselves on the islands (?). (October) Buenos Aries sends a garrison of 26 soldiers to the Falkland Islands. Britain protests.
1833 – (January) Argentine garrison ejected by British forces from HMS Clio. 22 of Vernet’s settlers remain as British subjects. (March) HMS Beagle visits th
the islands and Vernet sends 7 more settlers to join the others residents taking the numbers to 29. Argentina protests the British ejection of its garrison and states it’s claim to the islands in the annual ‘Message to Congress’ [and continues to do so every year till 1849].
Mar 21st, 2010 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse 01834 – Lieutenant Henry Smith is sent as the “resident naval officer” responsible for the administration of the Falkland Islands.
I think Jewett's claim on behalf of Argentina fails because at the time it was made Argentina was not a State/country in the eyes of either Spain or Britain, the two countries with pre-existing claims to the islands.
Mar 21st, 2010 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0..........“Argentina had an official claim on the Falklands in 1825 when Britain recognised Argentine independence? A bigger load of bull sh1t I have never seen! Jorge, you know it's not true, so stop peddling lies.”.......
Mar 21st, 2010 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Jewett made a claim in 1820 and you were awared of it. Punto Roberts!
...........“I'm very glad you finally admit that Argentina took their independence by force - in other words making it impossible to “inherit” anything from the Spanish.”.............
- I always said Argentina took its independence by force!!!!!!!!!! That does not invalid our claim antway.
..............“jorge! I am checking the signatories on the Nootka Convention, can't see Argentina mentioned anywhere.”..........
- And you won't see it. I recall Nootka Sound Convention only to show that UK had no rights over Malvinas, to show that ANY claim you could have had was buried in 1790. Just that!!!!!!!!
......“In Spains recognition of your independence in 1859 regrettably it does not specify any of the so-called inheritance factors you get so mouthy about, nor does it grant you the boundaries of the former Vice-Royalty.”...........
- Why do you say I get so mouthy about so-called inheritance??? I've never talked about any inheritance.
............“jorge has being doing reserch, well done jorge, you now know less than you did before, you pussy hole, you got no life jorge, you sit on this website and bitch and moan because thats all you can do, dont worry tho jorge, im not going to try and make you learn correct history because its obviouse your hed is so far gone up your arse that its pointless”..........
Mar 21st, 2010 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I've been slowly doing my research a long while ago, that's why I'm here posting my opinions, I wouldn't do it otherwise.
I have many things in my life and I can do much more than sitting behind a computer and you can't make me learn anything since you are unable to write without mistakes in your own language.
I'm doing my best here to write the best I can since I'm a English Language student and my mother tongue is Spanish. I find your writing somewhat disrespectful, you ignorant, analfabet!
..........“your in denial, you can call us whatever u want, pirates, theifs, it dosent matter, the islands are still ours, and there is nothing you can do about it, we were there before argentina was known as a country, so your claim is non existent, if we should discuss it with anyone it should be with spain or france first, never mind aye”...........
- Yes, I can call you whatever I want and I'm just posting my opinions man!. Why are you so angry? Get a life please!!!
...........“jorge your the typ of person that needs such a hard slap to bring you back down to reality, your acting like it was you that was there in 1833, acting like someone hurt you personally, wake the fuck up u tit your great gandperents wernt even around when all this happend”.........
- OMG, Can you stop braying please? lol.
.......“if we had taken the islands by force and massacerd everyone on it and say it was only 40 years ago, then i would accept your crying”.......
- Oh I see it's just a matter of time for you.
..........“stop crying jorge, do you want a tissue, would you like me to sing you a song jorge? it goes......dontt cry for me argentina...feel better now?”.........
Mar 21st, 2010 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I didn't know you were a singer!!! It seems to me now you are an addict to big “microphones”. lol
...........“anyway we had signd agreement saying that we would share the oil with your lot, but you lot ripped it up”........
- You can't share what is not yours.
............“your loss, now you want us to discusss and negotiate, what the fuck for? whats in it for us? were sitting on maybe 60 billion barrels why the fuck would we even think about negotiating with you lot? dont be stupid”........
- What is in it for you????? It depens on if you are an Islander or european british. If you are the first, you have a lot to gain, if you are the second, you have nothing to gain, you just can get the f*ck out of here.
Finally, my very little friend, why don't you come over here and insult me in front of me????
AHHHH! yes, you are not brave enough to do it.
MercoPress,
I see you deleted several of my comments these days, Why didn't you do the same with this thorson??? There are only insults in his comments.
........“Jorge! - thankyou, you're quite right I should have included the Nootka Sound Agreement.”.........
Mar 21st, 2010 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- You're welcome. I had no idea of Nootka Sound Convention two years ago. You can everyday learn something new.
Let's get down to business,
........”However your interpretation misses the secret clause allowing either party to establish a settlement if a third party (e.g. Argentina) settles in any of the areas covered by the treaty. Vernet's establishment of a settlement clearly voids the Nootka Sound clause and entitles Britian to act.”..........
- How could Argentina be a third party when it wasn't recognized as such by Spain??? (1833)
......“Another thought - can you inherit something by force?”......
- I don't think so. Never have I said such a thing anyway.
.......“Having spent the last few hours considering my list of notable dates, it seems to me that the period 1790 to 1833 is the most enlightening period and that this issue didn't 'start' in 1833 but ended there!”........
- When you consider a period from point 1 to point 2, it obviously starts in point 1 and ends in point 2, but for us, of course, the sovereignty problem started in 1833 with UK invation and haven't ended yet.
.........”1790 – Nootka Sound Convention No.1 (The Treaty of San Lorenzo) signed by Britain and Spain. [This places limitations on settlements but also includes a clause voiding the limitations if a third party builds any settlement.]“........
- There wasn't a ”third party“ in 1833.
........”1805 – Spanish maps start to refer to the islands as the ‘Malvinas’.
1810 – Buenos Aries forms its own ‘junta’ to pursue independence from Spain.”..........
- lol. You jump from 1805 to 1810 by omiting what happened in 1806 and 1807. What???? you don't know what happened?
OK. In 1806 and 1807 UK invaded Buenos Aires, somehow, it was not a surprise your behaviour in 1833. The two times british were defeated. Fine, let's continue,
..........“1820 – the pirate/privateer David Jewett reaches the islands after a unrewarding expedition to prey on Spanish ships. Jewett ‘claims’ the islands for Argentina in November but fails to inform Buenos Aries.”.........
Mar 21st, 2010 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Although there were no CNN or BBC at the time, lol, in the middle of 1821, Jewett claim was published in “La Gaceta de Salem” from USA and “Redactor” from Cádiz. Besides, it was also known by british and american whale hunters. You couldn't argue you were not aware of it.
.........”1828 – (January 5th) Vernet requests (and is given) a grant of land on East Falkland by the Buenos Aries Government. (January 30th) Vernet asks the British for their approval of the land grant which is signed by the Vice Consul on the 30th. Britain protests the grant of land by Buenos Aries.“..........
Vice consul signed and british protest???? Did you read what you wrote?
Vernet asking permision to the british just a myth.
Even if that were true, does it invalid our claim??? I don't think so.
.......”1829 – (June) The Buenos Aries Government under Juan Lavelle announces the ‘Political and Military Command of the Malvinas’ and gives Vernet the title of ‘civil and military commandant’. Britain protests. [Now that Vernet is acting in an official capacity on behalf of Argentina his settlement voids the Nootka Sound Convention limitations, as per the secret clause, because Argentina is now recognized by Britain as a country and not part of Spain”............
- It's amazing the ability to twist the history you have when it suits you.
Again, Argentina was not a third party, it was recognized as a country by UK, but not by Spain. Therefore, you acted unilaterally and ilegally.
.........”1831 – Back on the islands, Vernet seizes three US ships accusing them of ‘illegal sealing’. This is regarded by the United States as an act of piracy. (November) Vernet leaves the islands. (December) the USS Lexington arrives in the islands and ‘arrests’ 7 of Vernet’s crew [the Lexington raid]. The prisoners and some settlers leave with the Americans. Remaining is a settlement of 24 people“.......
Mar 21st, 2010 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- NOW THAT ONE WAS A REAL ACT OF PIRACY BY USA!!!!.
...........”1833 – (January) Argentine garrison ejected by British forces from HMS Clio. 22 of Vernet’s settlers remain as British subjects. (March) HMS Beagle visits the islands and Vernet sends 7 more settlers to join the others residents taking the numbers to 29.“........
- Naked piracy!!!!!
........”I think Jewett's claim on behalf of Argentina fails because at the time it was made Argentina was not a State/country in the eyes of either Spain or Britain, the two countries with pre-existing claims to the islands.”........
- Just because you didn't recognize us at the time doesn't mean we weren't a country. Anyway, under Spain's eyes, we were not a country (third party) in 1833, so that your landing that year was totally ilegal.
Hoytred, History is interesting, but as I said to “islander” many times (wich BTW has not been here for a while), it will not solve the problem. To solve it, fisrt, recognition of it is needed.
Cheers.
ohh I forgot
Mar 21st, 2010 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..........“Poor Jorge, proves again over and over he's a real che idiot. Laugh.”........
Nicholas, I know you were dumped by your argentine boyfriend, but that is not an excuse for your resentment against us. lol
Jorge, everyone knows the claim by the American David Jewett was not official. The Buenos Aires Junta did not instruct him to claim the Falklands. The first anyone in Argentina knew about Jewett's claim was more than a year later when the Argos newspaper repeated the story in the Redactor de Cadiz. A foreign news story!
Mar 21st, 2010 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And sadly for you Jorge, there is documentary evidence that Vernet submitted his land grants to the British vice-consul at Buenos Aires for confirmation. He knew Argentina did not have unlimited sovereignty over the Falklands, and judging from his subsequent actions it's obvious he accepted British sovereignty...
So you accept that territory can be gained by conquest. Argentina never managed to conquer the Falklands. Get over it!
Jorge!
Mar 21st, 2010 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. The Spanish and British claims date from before the 19th century and that factor remains important.
2. The 'third party' for the purposes of the Nootka Sound treaty is any State which is not Spain or Britain.
3. In 1820 when Jewett made his claim, he was 'Spanish' as far as both Spain and Britain were concerned and could therefore only be restating the Spanish claim. In effect this did not change anything, and only the competing claims from the 18th century remained. Part of the problem here is that while the United Provinces of South America declared their independence in 1816, the reality of 'Argentina' cannot be shown until much later. Possibly as late as 1859 when Buenos Aries became fully federated?
4. Vernet did not claim the islands and appears to have been playing with both sides in order to protect his own interests. There is documentary evidence supporting the British signing of Vernet's land grant.
5. When Buenos Aries confered an official title on Vernet he was then acting for a 'State' and a country that was already recognised by Britain. Although Spain did not recognise Argentina until 1859, the British were recognising and reacting to the de facto situation in South America. Therefore to the British the assertion of their 1765 claim was allowed under the Nootka Sound Treaty. In the circumstances a not unreasonable assumption?
And you are correct about history ... but the present still does not favour the Argentine argument as the UN Charters and Resolutions provide protection to the islands as demonstrated by Domingo in some of the earlier threads. Either way the islanders end up with the right to choose their destiny.
.......“And sadly for you Jorge, there is documentary evidence that Vernet submitted his land grants to the British vice-consul at Buenos Aires for confirmation.”........
Mar 21st, 2010 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Then show it. Even if that were true, our claim is still valid since Vernet's private actions does not invalid it.
..........“Jorge, everyone knows the claim by the American David Jewett was not official. The Buenos Aires Junta did not instruct him to claim the Falklands. The first anyone in Argentina knew about Jewett's claim was more than a year later when the Argos newspaper repeated the story in the Redactor de Cadiz. A foreign news story!”..........
- Official/Not official, difficult to know, very debatable, british arguments do not lie on that!
............“So you accept that territory can be gained by conquest. Argentina never managed to conquer the Falklands. Get over it!”..........
- Stop it! Or are you accepting the disgusting acts of piracy of 1833?
British empire is over, that's something you have to get over.
Hoytred, points 1, 2, 3.
Mar 21st, 2010 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have to read this,
The 1771 Agreement and the abandonment of Port Egmont in 1774.
When England became aware of these events, it threatened war on Spain but, through French mediation, an agreement was arrived at. The British Prime Minister, Lord North, declared that “if Spain provided the proper satisfaction (to the British), they (the British) will surely evacuate the islands (the Falklands).”
On the basis of this promise, Spain allowed the British to return to the Fort on Saunders Island. They arrived back in the islands on the 16th of September 1771. On the 20th May 1774, they definitively abandoned the territory alleging “economic reasons”.
This period, 1771 to 1774, produced a fundamental change in Spain’s situation in the Islands and assured her the undisputed dominion over the territory. In the first place, during the course of the diplomatic conversations that solved “the defamations made to His Majesty’s Crown” with the expulsion from Saunders in 1770, Spain reserved all her rights intact in the Islands. Great Britain never challenged these rights nor did she express any explicit reservation on these rights on their incorporation into the final agreement. This silence implies a tacit acceptance to all the Spain claimed in the treaty.
Furthermore, what the terms of the agreement authorized was that in compensation for the affront made to the British crown, they could return to their installations on Saunders (but without any recognition of a title of dominion) and not any British right over the islands. The whole of the archipelago remained under exclusive Spanish jurisdiction.
This is consequent with the realities of the situation because, in reality, the British establishment on Saunders was clandestine, organized under the major secrecy and hidden during the longest time possible. By this, the United Kingdom aimed at creating a priority title through the effective occupation, which was the reason why she had to proceed fu
.......proceed furtively so as to not call Spain’s attention to what she was doing. Despite all this, Bouganville’s colonization in 1764 destroyed Britain’s aspirations and her plan to gain priority was made void.
Mar 21st, 2010 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- You had no valid claim after that.
point 4.
Mar 21st, 2010 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet did not need to claim the islands since that was made by Jewett and there were no objetions made by UK in 1825. UK was aware of it.
If Vernet was playing with both sides, that would be a disgusting private act. It does not invalid our claim.
Show the evidence anyway
Note: gettinitright link is not allowed since it's all crap!
........“When Buenos Aries confered an official title on Vernet he was then acting for a 'State' and a country that was already recognised by Britain. Although Spain did not recognise Argentina until 1859, the British were recognising and reacting to the de facto situation in South America. Therefore to the British the assertion of their 1765 claim was allowed under the Nootka Sound Treaty. In the circumstances a not unreasonable assumption?.........
- Oh, you like now to differenciate legal things and de facto situations. You do it when it suits you, don't you!
.......”And you are correct about history ... but the present still does not favour the Argentine argument as the UN Charters and Resolutions provide protection to the islands as demonstrated by Domingo in some of the earlier threads. Either way the islanders end up with the right to choose their destiny.“............
- I don't agree. I think present and future is on our side. Why do you think UN call both sides to negotiate??? UN takes into account ”self-determination“ and ”terretorial integrity” rights. UN will not recognize you as a country no matter if you wish it due to the claim of Argentina and UN takes it seriously, otherwise, UN would just reject argentine claim.
And please, Domingo did not demostrate anything. Common!!!!!
Islanders will freely choose their destiny only when Argentina gets its rights respected.
By for now!
“Vernet did not need to claim the islands since that was made by Jewett ”
Mar 21st, 2010 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jewett's actions have historical value, but legally they mean nothing at all. Argentina neither inherited the Falklands from Spain (in which case Jewett's actions would have been unnecessary anyway, as far as sovereignty is concerned), nor were the Falklands Terra Nullius, necessary for a claim by occupation. Land that has never had a sovereign is Terra Nullius, but for land with a sovereign to become Terra Nullius, the land must not only be abandoned, it must be relinquished. Both the UK and Spain still had existing claims on the Falklands at the time. Spain did not begin to relinquish any of her territories in the Americas until 1836.
“and there were no objetions made by UK in 1825. UK was aware of it.”
There was no Argentine presence on the Falklands whatsoever in 1825 to object to. Argentina had no effective control of the Falklands at the time, nor did it ever manage to establish effective control.
“If Vernet was playing with both sides, that would be a disgusting private act. It does not invalid our claim.”
The fact that Argentina never established sovereignty invalidates your claim
“Show the evidence anyway
Note: gettinitright link is not allowed since it's all crap!”
gettingitright is substantiated by comtemporary references, which is more than be said for Argentine arguments.
here are some more
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/part.php?recordID=59
Particularly from: The Argentine claim-an anachronism?
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/part.php?recordID=59
What's the relevance of that decree of the 4th o December 1836 mentioned in the first paragraph? Hint see above where I say Spain did not begin to relinquish territory until 1836
More on that 1836 decree
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/part.php?recordID=59
here:
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/part.php?recordID=59
you will find the evolution of uti po
Jorge!
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry but I don't find your argument persuasive.
The British did nor 'abandon' the islands but left behind a plaque to maintain their claim. This was accepted by international standards at the time.
As to the quote by Lord North - what 'satisfaction' did Spain provide?
Great Britain did challenge Spain's rights in 1770 - they nearly went to war over the issue.
And Britain returned in 1771 with the issue of rights unresolved. Both sides still maintained their rights. Your source implies too much.
And in any case you are still talking about Spain - there is nothing to support the assertion that Argentina inherited Spain's claims in 1859.
Jewets land grant signature is supported by diplomatic correspondence.
(and the Getting it Right references carry weight, you provide no references)
I think Dabi's covered the rest and Domingo DID make out the UN position very well. The UN won't push the issue as it's own charters support the islanders. Have you not noticed - nothing is happening!
Sorry Jorge! You seem to be relying on a biased and under researched view of history that is unsupported by modern historians. Having said that, while I find the history fascinating I still believe that the present will be more important. Argentina and Britain are required by the UN to act on the wishes of the islanders. There is no 'territoial integrity' to be maintained, not has there ever been any. That argument is too weak to stand. The UN suggest we talk because otherwise they would have to take a side, and they just don't care enough!
“here:
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf
you will find the evolution of uti po”
Should have said:
here:
http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf
you will find the evolution of uti possidetis juris showing it was not international law during the period 1816-1833 (See from section entitled Norm Emergence)
Just been having a look at the UN's Decolonization Committee. Now there's a biased group of countries if ever I've seen one. Too many South and Central American countries to be able to take a non partisan view. What amused me however was -
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 01. the regurgitation by Argentina of its unproveable claim that an Argentine 'settlement' was erased by the British even though there is now clear evidence that Vernet's settlement remaind and grew after 1833.
2. that Argentina is focussing its UN efforts on the Decolonization Committee, whose very purpose is to 'free' colonies and assist them to attain self determination. Why would the Committee push for a 'colony' to be removed from one country only to become the 'colony' of another? That can only mean that Argentina is the one resisting any attempt by the Falkland Islanders to gain true independence. In other words, Argentina is keeping the islands British ................ now that's funny !
You're all missing one important point about Nootka, it never applied to the Falklands!
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka was intended as a peace treaty whereby Spain agreed to leave North America alone, Britain would leave South America alone. It applied to the continent and coastal islands. They're specified in the treaty article IV as 10 leagues (about 34 miles). It was never intended to apply to islands hundreds of miles away.
The argument about Nootka was first contrived by Paul Groussac in the late 19th Century and hinges solely on the creative interpretation of the treaty that the word adjacent means islands 300+ miles away. As adjacent means close proximity, its very creative. And just to put it into perspective, the ICJ has already delivered another precadent that islands only 100 miles off the coast were not “adjacent”.
But this is academic anyway as Spain unilaterally repudiated the treaty in 1795. Whether it was reactivated by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814 is debatable, as the language of that treaty is remarkably vague on the subject.
And as many contributors have already pointed out the secret article would make the treaty invalid the moment Argentina made a move to try and take the islands.
Utis Possidetis Juris was evolved at the Treaty of Lima in 1848, its a basic principle of international law that a country is not tied by a treaty it did not sign, nor is law retrospective.
The Treaty of Friendship 1825? In 1825 Argentina had no presence in the islands, Jewett's ineffective declaration was not exploited by Argentina in any way. It only found out about it second hand as a foreign news story and from Weddell's book. It was universally ignored. Jewett the pirate, is it not ironic that they make so much of his declaration yet call us pirates?
@Hotyred
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0You make a small error. Vernet approached the British consul to ask for permission to form a settlement in 1826 and 1828. He was granted such permission provided he gave regular reports on progress. He did, in which he frequently urges the British to establish a permanent garrison.
In 1829, Vernet approached the Government of BA for a vessel to attempt to control sealing. They refused, instead making a grand proclamation naming him Governor and telling him to do it with his own resources. It was this declaration that the British protested; understandable given they'd given their permission for Vernet. Vernet repudiated his appointment to the British, asserting his interest was purely commercial.
British protests were in 1829 (Vernet's appointment), 1831 (seizure of shipping) and 1832 (Mestivier's appointment).
Justin - thank you for the correction. I think the 1829 protest is noted in the diary of Charles Darwin which I've just been reading. He identifies the settlers remaining on the island when he arrived some weeks after HMS Clio is supposed to driven all the Spanish / Argentine settlers from the island. A contemporaneous record clearly disproving the Argentine Government's claim that the British drove out an existing Argentine settlement.
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0I Quote - “ March 1st
We arrived early in the morning at Port Louis, the most Eastern point of the Falkland Islands: The first news we received was to our astonishment, that England had taken possession of the Falklands islands & that the Flag was now flying. — These islands have been for some time uninhabited, untill the Buenos Ayres Government, a few years since claimed them & sent some colonists. — Our government remonstrated against this, & last month the Clio arrived here with orders to take possession of the place. — A Buenos ayrean man of war was here, at the time, with some fresh colonists. — Both they & the vessel returned to the Rio Plata. The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses. ”
Justin - and thankyou for your comments re. the Nootka Sound Convention .... VERY INTERESTING :-)
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, you ignored by request in section 7...
Mar 22nd, 2010 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you will enlighten us. Why did you chose to ignore my section on the Charter of the UN and instead focus on “my” off-the-cuff comment? Perhaps the Charter of the UN does not interest you?
ONLY respond if making a statement about the Charter of the UN (specifically the section I have posted).
What do you have to say about this section of the Charter?
WTF!!!!! I'm under attack by a bunch of pirates! Any similarity with 1833 acts are not a coincidence.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's see,
dab14763, I didn't have time to read your links, I'll do it though.
Ohh Hoytred, you couldn't alone that you had to bring the anti-argentine to help you.
It's OK.
........“Jorge!
Sorry but I don't find your argument persuasive.”..............
- IRRELEVANT.
.........“The British did nor 'abandon' the islands but left behind a plaque to maintain their claim. This was accepted by international standards at the time.”............
- Stop with the plaque for god sake!!!!!!!! That's ridiculous!
You could have left a monument and that wouldn't have been an excuse either!!!!
Plaques don't give rights. specially when you don't have them.
........“Great Britain did challenge Spain's rights in 1770 - they nearly went to war over the issue.”.........
- You challenged almost everything in the past and you continue to do it at present.
You gave up your (unreal) rights in 1771.
........“And Britain returned in 1771 with the issue of rights unresolved. Both sides still maintained their rights. Your source implies too much.”........
- The issue of rights unresolved?????
You didn't have them. Your settlement of Pt Egmont was illegal. You got there secretly in the spanish backs because you knew you couldn't do it officially.
Both sides maintained their rights?????
NOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You didn't have them. Stop inventing!
........“And in any case you are still talking about Spain - there is nothing to support the assertion that Argentina inherited Spain's claims in 1859.”........
- No. You are confusing to divert attention. I recall Nootka sound and 1771 agreement in order to show you didn't have rights in Malvinas, just that. We all know those treatys don't mention Argentina. The thing that matters here is you didn't have rights after 1771 (neither before).
The other thing is that Argentina was a third party according to you, well, that's false. Argentina, as you mention, was recognized as a country in 1859, so that in 1833 couldn't be a third party no matter if UK had already recognized Argentina as a country. The treaty needs at least two sides (like tango) and you were only one.
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..............”Jewets land grant signature is supported by diplomatic correspondence.
(and the Getting it Right references carry weight, you provide no references)“..........
- ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
- when I mentioned the british officials who recognized UK had no rights over Malvinas, I told where they were from and the context where they recognized it.
..........”I think Dabi's covered the rest and Domingo DID make out the UN position very well. The UN won't push the issue as it's own charters support the islanders. Have you not noticed - nothing is happening!”........
- If you think nothing is happening, then you live in the moon!!!!
That's what many ignorants thought in 1982!!!!
We have a problem here, otherwise you wouldn't be here talking about this and reading treatys, don't you think??? :-)
........“Sorry Jorge! You seem to be relying on a biased and under researched view of history that is unsupported by modern historians.”.........
- Historians???? You give me names and I'll give you names of historians who support argentine rights. Do not play that game!
..........“Argentina and Britain are required by the UN to act on the wishes of the islanders.”.........
- ARGENTINA and UK are required to SOLVE the DISPUTE (sovereignty) taking into account the INTEREST of ISLANDERS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
........“There is no 'territoial integrity' to be maintained, not has there ever been any.”............
- Terretorial integrity was broken and we want to fix it.
........“That argument is too weak to stand.”......
- No it is not!!!!
..........“The UN suggest we talk because otherwise they would have to take a side, and they just don't care enough”..............
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Where did you suck that one? What prevent UN to take a side?
In any case they would back Argentina, but they wouldn't do it since UK is one within the 5 club!!!!
........“That can only mean that Argentina is the one resisting any attempt by the Falkland Islanders to gain true independence.”......
- They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them.
It depens on us to do it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFlvC8UQHO8&feature=channel
..........“Just been having a look at the UN's Decolonization Committee. Now there's a biased group of countries if ever I've seen one. Too many South and Central American countries to be able to take a non partisan view.”.........
- Now you resort to the usual british arrogance. “”“”“We are right, and the rest of countries are wrong”“”“
Here you have someinteresting things, although you will not agree with it, wacht it!.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFlvC8UQHO8&feature=channel
..........”What amused me however was -
1. the regurgitation by Argentina of its unproveable claim that an Argentine 'settlement' was erased by the British even though there is now clear evidence that Vernet's settlement remaind and grew after 1833.“.......
- Bullshit!!!! Not only removed our people, removed our flag and authority there.
The worst thing is you replace them with your squaters.
..........”2. that Argentina is focussing its UN efforts on the Decolonization Committee, whose very purpose is to 'free' colonies and assist them to attain self determination. Why would the Committee push for a 'colony' to be removed from one country only to become the 'colony' of another?”.......
- That's our land. It is not our fault those british subjects are there. You put them, you take them away OR you could let them to negotiate with Buenos Aires their status (After you give the islands back, of course).
........“That can only mean that Argentina is the one resisting any attempt by the Falkland Islanders to gain true independence.”............
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them. We are the only ones who can let them be independent, not you.
........“In other words, Argentina is keeping the islands British ................ now that's funny !”.......
- Now you are drunk!!!!! Or stoned perhaps????
See you!
.........”You're all missing one important point about Nootka, it never applied to the Falklands!
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka was intended as a peace treaty whereby Spain agreed to leave North America alone, Britain would leave South America alone. It applied to the continent and coastal islands. They're specified in the treaty article IV as 10 leagues (about 34 miles). It was never intended to apply to islands hundreds of miles away.
The argument about Nootka was first contrived by Paul Groussac in the late 19th Century and hinges solely on the creative interpretation of the treaty that the word adjacent means islands 300+ miles away. As adjacent means close proximity, its very creative.“.......
- Is Malvinas adjacent to Europe, Africa, Asia, Oceania or North America??????
NOT!!!!! Yes you are right, adjacent means proximity, no more to talk about that!. You british are looking for ”“La quinta pata al gato”” (I don't know the equivalent in english).
Nookta perfectly applied here.
...........“And just to put it into perspective, the ICJ has already delivered another precadent that islands only 100 miles off the coast were not “adjacent”.”........
- So what!!! Nothing to do here.
.........“But this is academic anyway as Spain unilaterally repudiated the treaty in 1795. Whether it was reactivated by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814 is debatable”........
- lol. Every argument british cannot rebutte is “debatable” for you.
.........“as the language of that treaty is remarkably vague on the subject.”...........
- That one for sure is very creative. :-)
...........“And as many contributors have already pointed out the secret article would make the treaty invalid the moment Argentina made a move to try and take the islands.”..........
- The “”secret article“” talks about a third power that does not exist here.
...........“Utis Possidetis Juris was evolved at the Treaty of Lima in 1848, its a basic principle of international law that a country is not tied by a treaty it did not sign, nor is law retrospective.”..........
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I don't know about that. I have to study it. Then I'll tell you.
.....“It only found out about it second hand as a foreign news story and from Weddell's book. It was universally ignored”.......
- So what!!!!. You can (if you want) ignore that we (argentines) live here in Patagonia, wouldn't be a surprise coming from the british, but the fact is we are here!!!!!!!!!! Like we were in Malvinas!
.........“The Treaty of Friendship 1825? In 1825 Argentina had no presence in the islands, Jewett's ineffective declaration was not exploited by Argentina in any way.”.........
- I think the best answer to this is in one of the youtube videos which says,
“”You don't need to sleep in the garage to be sure you're not gonna be stolen“”
..........“Jewett the pirate, is it not ironic that they make so much of his declaration yet call us pirates?”..........
- Sorry, but “british pirates” is not my invention, neither from others argentines. You can find many people around the world calling you that way.
Take a look at this,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH7_kFxnEw0&feature=channel
Enjoy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Note: All the youtube video links I posted today are from Pampero1234. Thanks!
Finally Paddy said........“Why did you chose to ignore my section on the Charter of the UN and instead focus on “my” off-the-cuff comment? Perhaps the Charter of the UN does not interest you?”........
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Look, I've read a lot of times that. Many people have posted that here. I'm up to my ears of reading it.
good bye!
I told you I was more interested (as argentinean) in the territorial integrity right.
The more I study this issue, the more I convince myself of our rights!!!!!!!!
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0jorge! Let me get this right. One Imperialist power did a deal with another Imperialist Power in the 18th Century to carve up the Americas between them, North and South, and you expect the present population of the Falklands to interpret this gangster deal in your favour.
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think so !!!!!!!!
1831 :: US Warships destroy settlements ......
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 01832 :: Argentina sends another Governor who is killed in mutiny....
1833 :: British Forces return to islands to grab....
the rest all are odds a
1831 :: US Warships destroy settlements ......
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 01832 :: Argentina sends another Governor who is killed in mutiny....
1833 :: British Forces return to islands to grab....
the rest all are odds a
!833 did not start anything, it finished it. The 'squatters' there in 1833 were mainly from Argentina and they opted to stay as British subjects (mainly because Vernett had only paid them in worthless paper currency which he printed) when Britain reasserted the rights it had held since 1765. When the British left the islands they did not abandon them and complied with the accepted rules of the time to maintain their claim. As indeed Spain did when it left.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0In any case there is contemporaneus evidence of the remaining settlers (Darwin's diary) and of Vernetts request for British permission (Foreign Office records). The Argentine claims do not hold water historically.
On consideration it would be ludicrous to accept that the Nootka Sound agreement would refer to 'coastal islands' and still include the Falklands which are so far away from the coast.
Legally, the islands have been British so long as to make that the case. The UN charters favour the islanders which is why the UN is unlikely to get involved in any real sense. The Decolonization Committee is a toothless tiger surrounded by controversy which has only managed one independence in the last 10 years.
I don't doubt that when the oil company reports this week that there will be more sabre rattling from Argentina and its cohort of banana republics/dictatorships ......... then it'll all die down and go quiet again. The pattern for much of the last 28 years! Indeed much of the previous 177.
.........“jorge! Let me get this right. One Imperialist power did a deal with another Imperialist Power in the 18th Century to carve up the Americas between them, North and South, and you expect the present population of the Falklands to interpret this gangster deal in your favour.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think so !!!!!!!!”..........
- No, I expect Britain does what it has to does, sit down to negotiate the terms of sovereignty. Argentina has rights over Malvinas. Their residents also have rights since they are not guilty for what british pirates did in 1833, so, to solve this, we must sit down to negotiate, very simple.
........“!833 did not start anything, it finished it”.........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Ridiculous!!!!!
........”The 'squatters' there in 1833 were mainly from Argentina and they opted to stay as British subjects (mainly because Vernett had only paid them in worthless paper currency which he printed) when Britain reasserted the rights it had held since 1765.“..........
- I TOLD YOU A LOT OF TIMES UK HAD NO RIGHS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
........”When the British left the islands they did not abandon them and complied with the accepted rules of the time to maintain their claim. As indeed Spain did when it left.“..........
- BULLSHIT!!!!! You left them because, first of all, you had to go North America and second of all, by leaving, you didn't lose anything since you didn't have ANY right there. Spain continued ruling till 1811 when it left. At that time, the war in North America had already ended. You did not return for almost 60 years. We claimed the islands for us in 1820. Jewett did the ceremony raising our flag. You were aware of it also the british and american whalers. You have no excuse!!!!! What you did in 1833 was ilegal and disgusting. More disgusting is the fact you don't want to recognize it.
.........”On consideration it would be ludicrous to accept that the Nootka Sound agreement would refer to 'coastal islands' and still include the Falklands which are so far away from the coast.“.........
- You know from the bottom of your being that's not true. Malvinas are very close to Argentina. They are adjacent islands.
I could consider sandwich islands as far away, but not Malvinas, no way!
........”Legally, the islands have been British so long as to make that the case.”.........
- Legally????????????? You don't know what legally means!!!!!
Do not confuse legality with force. One has nothing to do with the other.
........“The UN charters favour the islanders which is why the UN is unlikely to get involved in any real sense.”..........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0- For the time being you could be right, but let me tell you that future is coming and it's bringing surprises!!!!!!!!! If you are young enough, you would be able to see it.
..........“The Decolonization Committee is a toothless tiger surrounded by controversy which has only managed one independence in the last 10 years.”..............
- Your country is a toothless tiger. Hopefully, you will realize one day.
Unfortunaly, you have politicians melancholic of imperial times.
..........“I don't doubt that when the oil company reports this week that there will be more sabre rattling from Argentina and its cohort of banana republics/dictatorships”...........
- Now tha's why more than a half of the world hates you. That's the arrogance and fascism of yours wich will always report problems to your country. You and USA are the only two countries hated in every corner of the world.
Oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil, oil......A veces es una bendición, otras una maldición, qué será esta vez???????
- Having said that, I finish saying that it is useless from now on to continue to debate with you since you refuse to recognise elemental things like there is a problem here.
GOOD LUCK!!!!
Jorge - you have indeed repeated yourself about the British having no rights but have yet to prove your case. Spain was well aware of the British claim which was why they reasserted theirs on leaving in 1811. In 1820 Jewett was regarded by both Spain and Britain as being Spanish and so he could not do anything more than reassert Spain's claim. The British did know of it, but if any objection was made then it had to be made to Spain.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0The action in 1833 was Britain reasserting its rights. Having recognised Argentina's existence in 1825, the British acted to remove the trespassing Argentine garrison. Vernet's guachos remained together with an Englishman who had been there for some years (see Darwin's diary for 1st March 1833).
And the Falkland Islands are not close enough to the mainland to be classed as 'coastal islands'.
I understand why the British Government is so sure of its case that it does not lobby or expend energy arguing. The British case on sovereignty is quite clear and “there is nothing to discuss”.
I should adopt the same approach but I quite like responding to your unsupported assertions and twisted view of history.
Hasta luego !
As to there being a problem ......
Mar 24th, 2010 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0ths islands belong to the islanders - NO PROBLEM
the islanders wish to repain British at this time - NO PROBLEM
the British are prepared to support the islander's wishes, financially, politically and militarily - NO PROBLEM
so ...... what problem ???
Oh here we go again. The uninformed Jorge shouts that the Nootka Sound Convention means Britain had “NO RIGHTS” in the Falkland Islands.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well, actually, Article VI of said Convention gave Britain the following rights: ...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.
A few questions and to point out the obvious double standards.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka was a treaty between Spain and the UK, neither side EVER applied it to the Falklands. As an Argentine argument it was contrived nearly a century later - how come it took so long, why does Moreno not mention it in his protest of 1834 for example?
The plaques.
In 1776, the British leave a plaque, the garrison leaves but the British continue to use the islands. Argentina of course claims a 60 year absence but that is another myth and there are plenty of contemporary records to demonstrate this. A commercial use yes, but then the vast majority of the British Empire was founded and pioneered by commercial companies. But apparently a commercial use isn't official enough to confer any sovereignty rights; according to Argentina
In 1811, Spain also leave a plaque but completely abandons any presence in the islands. On the basis of this plaque, Argentina asserts it “inherits” Spanish rights and a commercial privateering venture confers absolute rights upon Argentina.
So a Spanish plaque, complete absence and an Argentine commercial venture are fine but a British plaque, continued presence albeit commercial aren't.
Can anyone else spot the double standard?
And Pampero1234, I had a look at a few of his other videos, funnily enough every time someone pulls his arguments apart the comments are closed down. He also reckons the Invincible was sunk and the British constructed a replica.
You consider this a suitable response to reasoned argument backed up by historical evidence?
Good point about the occassional but regular settlements by British whalers etc.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Going back to Jewett, I note that he didn't actually claim the islands for 'Argentina' but for the 'United Provinces of South America' and did so on 6 November 1820. Now I understand that the United Provinces fell apart in 1820 and ended up forming Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay. Now, unless that break-up happened after 6 November then Jewett was claiming the islands for a 'nation' that did not in fact exist. An alternative would be that Bolivia and Urguay would also have a claim based on Jewett. Any views ??
Another example of a certain amount of inconsistency in the Argentine claim is that the islands were administered from Montevideo at the time they were abandoned. Strict application of the Utis Possidetis Juris principle would confer a claim upon Uruguay not Argentina.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jewett was also not acting for the United Provinces, he was employed by the BA business man Patricio Lynch, owner of the Heroina, to captain the vessel on a privately sponsored voyage that hoped to repeat the Pacific sucesses of Rondeau in the Atlantic. Jewett was a lousy deep water captain, half of his crew ended up with scurvy and his sole sucesses were the seizure of the Carlota (Portuguese and therefor an act of piracy) and the Rampart (American). The Carlota sank in a storm under a prize crew, the same storm that nearly wrecked the Heroina forcing it to seek shelter in the Falklands. Seizure of the Rampart caused a diplomatic spat with America, at the time one of the few nations to recognise the nearly independent nation. As a result Jewett was fired and replaced by Mason, who carried on in the same vein seizing Portuguese ships rather than Spanish vessels, till his piracy career was halted by a Portuguese frigate.
No nation could have a claim based on Jewett's actions, thats why, like so many elements of what the myths the modern state of Argentina has manufactured for itself, it has to embroider the truth.
I've been looking at a few more of Jorge's videos, there is some classic comedy gold in there:
Mar 24th, 2010 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH7_kFxnEw0&feature=channel
“Legitimate doesn't mean legal”
“British doesn't mean Britain”
“The ICJ doesn't have forces to make effective resolution...only the UN decolonisation committee does”
............“Oh here we go again. The uninformed Jorge shouts that the Nootka Sound Convention means Britain had “NO RIGHTS” in the Falkland Islands.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, actually, Article VI of said Convention gave Britain the following rights: ...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.”..........
- We are talking about sovereignty rights here. No te hagás el vivo Archibald!
And Article XIII frees Britain of all obligations upon the intervention of a 3rd party, and Spain unilaterally repudiated it in 1795, and Argentina derives no rights or benefits from a treaty it was not a party too, specifically not a treaty that doesn't apply to the Falklands.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Jorge, why did it take a century for someone in Argentina to come up with a Nootka based argument?
..........“Can anyone else spot the double standard?”........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Spain had sovereignty rights over Malvinas unlike you. That's why your plaque means nothing.
There is no double standard! At least by our side.
.........“And Pampero1234, I had a look at a few of his other videos, funnily enough every time someone pulls his arguments apart the comments are closed down.”.........
- I knew you you would do that.
It's like that time when you said “”I didn't say that, find me where I said UK propoused to take Malvinas case to the ICJ on 3 different occasions and Argentina refused.“” Remember???? I found you, I put the link and you didn't appear for several weeks.
........“He also reckons the Invincible was sunk and the British constructed a replica.
You consider this a suitable response to reasoned argument backed up by historical evidence?”..........
- well, rebutte him!!!! He just made a video explaining it. It wouldn't be a surprise for me among many others around the world that Britain had replace its warship for anotherone. It and its people wouldn't tolerate a third world country had kicked out Invencible. Tatchert head would have had a price.
.........“Going back to Jewett, I note that he didn't actually claim the islands for 'Argentina' but for the 'United Provinces of South America' and did so on 6 November 1820. Now I understand that the United Provinces fell apart in 1820 and ended up forming Argentina, Bolivia and Uruguay.”........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- According to our constitucion, we are still The United Provincies. You can call us Argentina or United Provincies, it's the same.
........“An alternative would be that Bolivia and Urguay would also have a claim based on Jewett. Any views ??”...........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Che Archibald, te acordás que este era un argumento tuyo antes??? Fue totalmente destruido de todas formas.
..........“And Article XIII frees Britain of all obligations upon the intervention of a 3rd party, and Spain unilaterally repudiated it in 1795, and Argentina derives no rights or benefits from a treaty it was not a party too, specifically not a treaty that doesn't apply to the Falklands.
So Jorge, why did it take a century for someone in Argentina to come up with a Nootka based argument?”.........
- The treaty was revived. Argentina was not a third party.
I talk for myself. I don't talk on behalf of 40000000 argentines.
.........“I've been looking at a few more of Jorge's videos, there is some classic comedy gold in there”........
- That's good. wacht them. They may help you!
oh I forgot,
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.........“So Jorge, why did it take a century for someone in Argentina to come up with a Nootka based argument?”..........
- If that someone is me, I was born in 1982. Sorry!
“It's like that time when you said “”I didn't say that, find me where I said UK propoused to take Malvinas case to the ICJ on 3 different occasions and Argentina refused.“” Remember???? I found you, I put the link and you didn't appear for several weeks.”
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope, the link you posted doesn't say anything like what you claimed.
“He just made a video explaining it. It wouldn't be a surprise for me among many others around the world that Britain had replace its warship for anotherone. It and its people wouldn't tolerate a third world country had kicked out Invencible. ”
Did he really, don't you mean you made a video. Do you seriously believe the Invincible was sunk?
http://www.gearthhacks.com/dlfile16932/HMS-Invincible.htm
She is sitting in Portsmouth.
The question Jorge, was why did it take some a century to articulate an argument based on Nootka, purely co-incidentally at a time when Argentina was reviving its claim after renouncing it with the Treaty of Convention in 1850. Why did it take a century (and why avoid the question)?
Argentina is a 3rd party, it is not one of the original signatories to the treaty, whether it was even revived by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814 is a moot point.
........“Nope, the link you posted doesn't say anything like what you claimed.”.........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- jajajajaja.. Justin, no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver!
..........“Did he really, don't you mean you made a video. Do you seriously believe the Invincible was sunk?”............
- errr First of all, I didn't make the video, I don't know how to, It's interesting though and second of all, I don't know if invencible was sunk, but hit, that's for sure.
..........”The question Jorge, was why did it take some a century to articulate an argument based on Nootka, purely co-incidentally at a time when Argentina was reviving its claim after renouncing it with the Treaty of Convention in 1850. Why did it take a century (and why avoid the question)?“............
- I don't know all the arguments on our side or where they were made. I'm still reading them.
You recognize argentine rights over Malvinas in 1825 by omiting mention them. So, convention in 1850? It doesn't matter. Did I avoid the question????
........”Argentina is a 3rd party, it is not one of the original signatories to the treaty, whether it was even revived by the Treaty of Madrid in 1814 is a moot point.“..........
- Argentina is NOT a ”third party”. It was not recognized as such in 1833 by Spain, one of the signatories.
Jorge - “According to our constitucion, we are still The United Provincies. You can call us Argentina or United Provincies, it's the same”
Mar 24th, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The United Provinces of the River Plate, yes ..... not the United Provinces of South America - and I'm not sure it is the same. After all, this was added to your constitution rather later and looks like a shoe in to cover the language used by Jewett.
There appears to be some serious doubt abot wether the Nootka Sound agreement applies to the Falkland islands at all. At 300 miles they can hardly be seen as 'adjacent', I think Paris is closer to London than that! The treaty was then suspended in 1795 but it's not very clear when, if at all, it was renewed/reinstated. There is also some evidence that it was breached by Spain first, in an area that is now in Uruguay - San Clemente de Tuyu.
The secret article to the Nootka Sound Convention states
“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.”
It doesn't talk about 3rd parties, it refers to “ any other power”. As Argentina had been recognised by Britain, had declared itself independant and was in open revolt against Spain, it could I think be seen as a 'power'. Doesn't mention 'islands adjacent' either ??
Jorge “You recognize argentine rights over Malvinas in 1825 by omiting mention them.”
Mar 24th, 2010 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We didn't have to mention them ..... we already had them and had done so since 1765. Leaving is not abandonment. Not in any national or international law. Why would we make a point of mentioning the islands in our recognition of Argentina ? We didn't have a problem then either !
“no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver”
Mar 24th, 2010 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How amusing. Jorge just described himself much better than I could ever describe him...
Jorgelito nacido en 1983 said: “Argentina is NOT a ”third party”. It was not recognized as such in 1833 by Spain, one of the signatories.”
Mar 24th, 2010 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it was viewed as a 3rd party by Britain, who had recognised Argentina in 1826.
Jorge, the 1825 treaty does not define Argentine territory at all. There was no authority from Argentina in the Falklands at all in 1825 to recognise.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, Argentina has had territorial disputes with its neighbours, with Chile for example how does it work? Does a UK recognition of Argentina mean the UK recognises the disputed territories as Argentine, or does recognition of Chile mean the UK recognises them as Chilean?
...........“The United Provinces of the River Plate, yes ..... not the United Provinces of South America - and I'm not sure it is the same.”.........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- lol. We've never been “the united provincies of South America”. Where did you suck that one?????
We always were “The United Provincies of the River Plate”. You IGNORANT!!!!!!!
.........“There appears to be some serious doubt abot wether the Nootka Sound agreement applies to the Falkland islands at all. At 300 miles they can hardly be seen as 'adjacent'”.......
- Why???? Tell me what a dictionary says about the word “adjacent”.
........“I think Paris is closer to London than that!”........
- IRRELEVANT!
........“The treaty was then suspended in 1795 but it's not very clear when, if at all, it was renewed/reinstated.”.........
- lol. It is not clear for you because that way it suits you!
.........“There is also some evidence that it was breached by Spain first, in an area that is now in Uruguay - San Clemente de Tuyu.”.......
- I'm sorry, I did not understand. Can you explain that thing in San Clemente del Tuyú????
........“It doesn't talk about 3rd parties, it refers to “ any other power””......
- Third party = Any other power with the exception of UK and Spain. Don't try to confuse!
........“As Argentina had been recognised by Britain, had declared itself independant and was in open revolt against Spain, it could I think be seen as a 'power'. Doesn't mention 'islands adjacent' either ??”........
- Yes Hoytred, you said YOU THINK!!!!!!, but unfortunaly for you, you are wrong again.
A treaty is signed by two (in this case) and only you recognized Argentina in 1833, one of the signatories (Spain) didn't. So that, Argentina was not a third party/power. END OF STORY!!!!!
WTF! I don't know why I took the time to reply you. Maybe because is holiday in Argentina! :-)
........“We didn't have to mention them ..... we already had them and had done so since 1765.”.............
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- No you didn't and have never had them.
.........“Leaving is not abandonment.”..........
- Go to fight with the dictionary!!!
.........“Not in any national or international law. Why would we make a point of mentioning the islands in our recognition of Argentina ?”.........
- Because we claim them in 1820. You didn't say a word, so recognized our sovereignty. END OF STORY!
Oh but it isn't is it Jorge? The story will end soon, but not in your favor I will wager.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The time is coming when Argentina will lose her incestious claim to the islands.
The more and more you rant and, the more and more the proper nations of the world, ignore you, the wailing bully child of International relations.
This has got beyond History Jorge, people are more interested in the current? And the Current arguements don't favor Argentina. Namely human rights.
.......““no hay peor ciego que el que no quiere ver”
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How amusing. Jorge just described himself much better than I could ever describe him...”..............
- Saliste a defender a tu señora????? Son ud los ciegos!
..............“Jorgelito nacido en 1983 said: “Argentina is NOT a ”third party”. It was not recognized as such in 1833 by Spain, one of the signatories.”
But it was viewed as a 3rd party by Britain, who had recognised Argentina in 1826.”..............
- I'm not Jorgelito, in any case I'd be Jorgito.
- I wasn't born in 1983, I was born in 22th May 1982.
- You need 2 to tango. Spain didn't consider us as a country, so UK acted unilaterally and ilegally.
.........“Jorge, the 1825 treaty does not define Argentine territory at all. There was no authority from Argentina in the Falklands at all in 1825 to recognise.”...........
- It doesn't matter. Many countries for many years didn't have authorities in some parts of their terretories, that doesn't mean you could take it over.
We didn't have a governor in Tierra del Fuego until (if I remember well) 1994. That doesn't mean you could have taken it in 1993 or before.
.........“Also, Argentina has had territorial disputes with its neighbours, with Chile for example how does it work?”...........
- We had 30 remaining disputes with Chile early 90's. During that decade, we peacefully solved all of them. As you can see now, two sides willing to solve a dispute can do it peacefully throughout talking.
Remember, In 10 years we solved 30 almost 30 disputes with chile.
..........“Does a UK recognition of Argentina mean the UK recognises the disputed territories as Argentine, or does recognition of Chile mean the UK recognises them as Chilean?”..........
- I don't think so. Anyway, Malvinas was not a disputed terretorie until you invaded them.
106 Rhaurie-Craughwell,
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought you were dead! :-)
your comment is not worth replaying anyway.
Good luck!
1831 :: US warships destroy settlements...
Mar 24th, 2010 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 01832 :: Argentina sends another Governor who is killed in mutiny..
1833 :: British Forces return to islands to grab...
the rests are all worthless !!
.........“There is also some evidence that it was breached by Spain first, in an area that is now in Uruguay - San Clemente de Tuyu.”.......
Mar 24th, 2010 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I'm sorry, I did not understand. Can you explain that thing in San Clemente del Tuyú????
Well, if you actually bothered to read Nootka, which I doubt you have, you would see that article VI was a reciprocal article, and that not only was GB forbidden to settle in places south of what Spain already had, Spain was also forbidden to settle in those places. San Clemente del Tuyú is directly south of what is now Uruguay so When Spain began to settle there in late 18th, early 19th centuries, it was in breach of that article.
Note to Hoytred: San Clemente del Tuyú is in Argentina not Uruguay.
.........“Leaving is not abandonment.”..........
- Go to fight with the dictionary!!!
What he means is that they were not relinquished. The UK kept its claim, as did Spain when it left.
.........“Jorge, the 1825 treaty does not define Argentine territory at all. There was no authority from Argentina in the Falklands at all in 1825 to recognise.”...........
- It doesn't matter. Many countries for many years didn't have authorities in some parts of their terretories, that doesn't mean you could take it over.
It matters very much in the case of unilateral secession. In the case of unilateral secession, the seceding entity has to establish effective control over its territory. In 1825 Argentina had not established any effective control of the Falklands, it had not established the Falklands as part of its territory, nor did it ever do so.
We didn't have a governor in Tierra del Fuego until (if I remember well) 1994. That doesn't mean you could have taken it in 1993 or before.
Tierra del fuego was not made a province till 1990. That's why it didn't have a governor until then. That doesn't mean it didn't have any authorities.
.........“Also, Argentina has had territorial disputes with its neighbours, with Chile for example how does it work?”...........
Mar 24th, 2010 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- We had 30 remaining disputes with Chile early 90's. During that decade, we peacefully solved all of them. As you can see now, two sides willing to solve a dispute can do it peacefully throughout talking.
Remember, In 10 years we solved 30 almost 30 disputes with chile.
I meant how does GB recognition affect who GB considers those disputed territories belong to
..........“Does a UK recognition of Argentina mean the UK recognises the disputed territories as Argentine, or does recognition of Chile mean the UK recognises them as Chilean?”..........
- I don't think so.
You don't think they mean the UK recognised those territories as either Argentine or Chilean, well neither did the 1825 treaty recognise the Falklands as Argentine.
Anyway, Malvinas was not a disputed terretorie until you invaded them.
Yes, they were. They were disputed between UK and Spain. In 1833 neither country had yet relinquished its claim.
Jorge! - enjoy you holiday. Dabi - thanks for the correction, I found out when I wikied it ... but hey, it's adjacent to Uruguay so they've probably got a claim :-)
Mar 25th, 2010 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0...........“The United Provinces of the River Plate, yes ..... not the United Provinces of South America - and I'm not sure it is the same.”.........
Jorge - lol. We've never been “the united provincies of South America”. Where did you suck that one?????
We always were “The United Provincies of the River Plate”. You IGNORANT!!!!!!! “
My point entirely ... where I got it from was the report of Jewett's claim. He appears to have used the term ” United Provinces of South America“ ... if that was never you, then who was he claiming them for?”
Having studied the law I can assure you that 'leaving' and 'abandonment' are two entirely different concepts. In law it's often the words that are the most important things in deciding a dispute. thus 'adjacent' becomes important. It would require definition.
ed - in 1831 the US navy did NOT destroy the settlement, it made some arrests and destroyed the capacity to attack shipping. Nothing else. There was no 'Governor' in 1832. And in 1833 the British did not 'grab' they 'retrieved'.
Argentina has only ever managed effictive control of the Falkland Islands for four months. Two in 1832 and two in 1982. This is not sufficient !
“Dabi - thanks for the correction”
Mar 25th, 2010 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0that's a number 1 not a letter i
“Argentina has only ever managed effictive control of the Falkland Islands for four months.”
Whatever control Argentina ever had, it was only limited to Port Louis not the whole archipelago. And we are talking here over 12,000 km2, an area larger than several independent states.
...........“The United Provinces of the River Plate, yes ..... not the United Provinces of South America - and I'm not sure it is the same.”.........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - lol. We've never been “the united provincies of South America”. Where did you suck that one?????
We always were “The United Provincies of the River Plate”. You IGNORANT!!!!!!! “
My point entirely ... where I got it from was the report of Jewett's claim. He appears to have used the term ” United Provinces of South America“ ... if that was never you, then who was he claiming them for?”
United Provinces of South America was an alternative name for United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_South_America
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Provinces_of_South_America
.........“San Clemente del Tuyú is directly south of what is now Uruguay so When Spain began to settle there in late 18th, early 19th centuries, it was in breach of that article.”.........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0- I know where San Clemente is!!!!! I live in Argentina. What you say about that is irrelevant to Malvinas issue.
..........“What he means is that they were not relinquished. The UK kept its claim, as did Spain when it left.”........
- You renounced to your contrived rights in 1771. Your claim after that was just ridiculous and invalid of course!
..........“In 1825 Argentina had not established any effective control of the Falklands, it had not established the Falklands as part of its territory, nor did it ever do so.”...........
- We claimed them in 1820. Jewett raised our flag in a ceremony and british whalers (the only british with sporadic presence in Malvinas) witnessed it. A year later the event was published in “redactor” from Cádiz and “La Gaceta de Salem” from USA. We sent several expeditions there during 1820's and appointed a governor called Luis Vernet.
HOW DO YOU DARE TO SAY ARGENTINA NEVER ESTABLISHED MALVINAS AS PART OF ITS TERRETORIE!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! GET OUT OF HERE!!!
..........“Tierra del fuego was not made a province till 1990. That's why it didn't have a governor until then.”...........
- Please, tell me something I don't know. Now you pretend to teach me the history of my country. GET OUT OF HERE!
..........“That doesn't mean it didn't have any authorities.”.........
- The authority of “Territorio Nacional de Tierra del Fuego” was the federal government in B.A.
.........“Yes, they were. They were disputed between UK and Spain. In 1833 neither country had yet relinquished its claim.”.........
- BULLSHIT!!!! CRAP!!!!! You relinquished your contrived claim in 1771 with the agreement with Spain.
...........“My point entirely ... where I got it from was the report of Jewett's claim. He appears to have used the term ” United Provinces of South America“ ... if that was never you, then who was he claiming them for?””........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 02:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0- CRAP! Viceroyalty of River Plate had no juridiccion over what is known today as Peru, Ecuador, Colombia, Venezuela and Brazil. The vast majority of South America were not under juridiccion of Viceroyalty of River Plate.
Jewitt raised argentine flag. Don't be ridiculous!!!!
..........“Having studied the law I can assure you that 'leaving' and 'abandonment' are two entirely different concepts. In law it's often the words that are the most important things in deciding a dispute. thus 'adjacent' becomes important. It would require definition.”..........
- I almost don't understand this paragraph, but “leaving” or “abadonment” meanings don't matter here. You lost your virtual rights in 1771. There is no more virtual rights for you after that year. Get over it once for all!!!!
..........“Argentina has only ever managed effictive control of the Falkland Islands for four months. Two in 1832 and two in 1982. This is not sufficient !”.........
- More and more crap!!!!! What you say is false. Even if Argentina had managed to control the islands just a couple of weeks, that does not give you any right. Who the hell are you to judge what is sufficient or not?!?!?!?!
..........“Whatever control Argentina ever had, it was only limited to Port Louis not the whole archipelago.”...........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0- And whatever Spain granted to you in 1770/71 was just the re-establishment of Port Egmont, not the whole archipelago and it didn't mean recognition of sovereignty which always was under Spain.
...........“United Provinces of South America was an alternative name for United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata”.........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0- That was never official. I'm still right!
Good luck!
“I know where San Clemente is!!!!! I live in Argentina. What you say about that is irrelevant to Malvinas issue”
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Jorgelito (nacido en 1982 y todavia en pañales) agrees the Nootka Sound Convention is irrelevant to the Malvinas issue. Good!
For what it's worth, my OED defines adjacent as: lying near (to), adjoining, contiguous (to).
Oh and Jorgelito is a perfectly acceptable diminutive for Jorge, even more so if it winds someone up.
Dab ... ok, my eyesight ain't so good. Put it down to age :-)
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge! - you seem to have this same hangup about 1770/71. Let me try one last time to put you right. In 1770 the Spanish were strong enough to push the British off the Falkland Islands. As a result there was nearly a war over the issue. Then there were talks and SPAIN BACKED DOWN, leaving the British to return. No secret clauses, no abandonment of rights. If the Spanish had held their position then there would have been conflict ... so they didn't. The British returned to the Falklands and the issue of sovereignty was ignored.
The Britsih the maintained a settlement till 1774. Then they 'popped out' for 60 years. No abandonment of the claim, just not regularly there.
Jewett did not raise an Argentine flag because Argentina by that name did not exist. He claimed the islands for the United Provinces od South America according to the subsequent reports. If you say that Argentina never had that name then hey, I believe you!
Hotyred, the British didn't pop out for 60 years, thats another element of Argentine myth making. In reality, the British were actively exploiting the resources in the islands whilst the Spanish could only look on and whine about it.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British left the settlement in 1776 by the way, thats a very common error.
Jorge, the point is Argentina never controlled the Falklands. If the Argentine claim is allegedly so strong, why do you have to exagerrate so much?
And I dare to say it because it happens to be true, in response you can only scream in the wilderness.
Couldn't we just organise an international conference on sovereignty? Lots of lobster, caviar and fine wine to lubricate the diplomatic wheels; plenty of high profile guests to emphasise its importance and legitimacy and a commitment to abide by the UN resolution to hold negotiations.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 10:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then state that we have no plans to take any action that impedes the islanders right to self determination and leave.
Everyone should then be happy.
Jorge can you please clarify a couple of your points for me?
Mar 25th, 2010 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say “They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them. We are the only ones who can let them be independent, not you.” in referrence to the Falkland Islanders.
You also say that Argentina were not a 3rd party so Nootka does not apply.
Can you please clarify for me then when you believe Argentina became an independant state?
Only if we refer back to your argument that “It is up to Argentina to grant indepedence to Falklanders as only you can let them be independant” then Agrentina was not indpendent until recognised by Spain in 1859.
So when was Argentina independant 1816 or 1859?
@LegionNi nice one but you can bet on a spot of Double Think from Jorge to justify it, without spotting the obvious hypocrisy.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the corrections Justin - always learning.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I note that Aergentina is about to celebrate 200 years of independence .... from the May revolution of 1810 ! They do get confused over their history, don't they?
Jorge to add to my comment above see 123, you appear to be contradicting yourself with the below statement.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.........“Oh yes .... 1816 - Argentina becomes ... Argentina ! and 1860 - Spain recognises Argentina. I must find out exactly what it recognised?”.........
- We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious)
So if the Falkanders declare their independence by your own arguement here they do not need your permission even if you did have soverignty of the islands. It is no different to what your country men did in 1816.
Jorge your comments:
Mar 25th, 2010 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious) ”
PLUS
“They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them. We are the only ones who can let them be independent, not you.”
EQUALS
Hypocrite
”We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious) ”
So you were a 3rd power then and Nootka applies.
Just worked my way through Samuel Johnson's 1771 treatise - “ Thoughts on the late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Island” - interesting, if long winded. The 'satisfaction' that the British demanded of Spain in 1771 was public disavowel of the BA Governor's actions and full restoration of Port Egmont.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As to the issue of sovereignty - “ The Spaniards have stipulated, that the grant of possession shall not preclude the question of prior right, a question which we shall probably make no haste to discuss, and a right, of which no formal resignation was ever required. This reserve has supplied matter for much clamour, and, perhaps the English ministry would have been better pleased had the declaration been without it. But when we have obtained all that was asked, why should we complain that we have not more? ”
This clearly demonstrates that the issue was left unresolved and the neither side 'resigned ' their right. This was in the face of British public discontent which is why Johnson set down his views. I can find nothing about Lord North talking of 'evacuation' and this contemporaneus work makes a nonsense of such a claim.
leigionNI -
Mar 25th, 2010 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge your comments:
”We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious) ”
PLUS
“They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them. We are the only ones who can let them be independent, not you.”
EQUALS
Hypocrite
well said
what it is, is that jorge thinks there is one set of rules for them, and another for the islanders, in reality he is so brainwashed bu what comes out hes mouth he cant see the light,
but really jorge, i would like your answer to that, why is it ok for you to claim your independence by force, as you openly stated, yet the islanders must be “granted it by argentina” do you see them as inferior to you? do you think your better than the islanders? your not, you call us ignorent jorge, but your the one who refers to the british as “there all pirates” and thieves and what ever else you think, yet its you who is generlising a whole nation wich is over 5 million individual people as all the same, in your case pirates, that jorge is ignorence
.........“San Clemente del Tuyú is directly south of what is now Uruguay so When Spain began to settle there in late 18th, early 19th centuries, it was in breach of that article.”.........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I know where San Clemente is!!!!! I live in Argentina. What you say about that is irrelevant to Malvinas issue.
It is now quite obvious to me that you have never read the Nootka Sound Convention. Yes, it is irrelevant to the Falklands issue, because Nootka is irrelevant to the Falklands. But Spain settling in San Clemente del Tuyú is very relevant to Nootka because Nootka prohibited Spain from settling there.
..........“What he means is that they were not relinquished. The UK kept its claim, as did Spain when it left.”........
- You renounced to your contrived rights in 1771. Your claim after that was just ridiculous and invalid of course!
The duc de Choiseul had proposed that the text should include an explicit reservation of Spanish right “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but the British insisted that this was removed from the text, and the treaty was drawn up with neutral wording: “cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands”.
..........“In 1825 Argentina had not established any effective control of the Falklands, it had not established the Falklands as part of its territory, nor did it ever do so.”...........
- We claimed them in 1820. Jewett raised our flag in a ceremony and british whalers (the only british with sporadic presence in Malvinas) witnessed it. A year later the event was published in “redactor” from Cádiz and “La Gaceta de Salem” from USA. We sent several expeditions there during 1820's and appointed a governor called Luis Vernet.
HOW DO YOU DARE TO SAY ARGENTINA NEVER ESTABLISHED MALVINAS AS PART OF ITS TERRETORIE!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! GET OUT OF HERE!!!
Claiming a territory is not the same thing as having effect
- We claimed them in 1820. Jewett raised our flag in a ceremony and british whalers (the only british with sporadic presence in Malvinas) witnessed it. A year later the event was published in “redactor” from Cádiz and “La Gaceta de Salem” from USA. We sent several expeditions there during 1820's and appointed a governor called Luis Vernet.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOW DO YOU DARE TO SAY ARGENTINA NEVER ESTABLISHED MALVINAS AS PART OF ITS TERRETORIE!!!?!?!?!?!?!?!?! GET OUT OF HERE!!!
Claiming a territory is not the same thing as having effective control over that territory. And Jewetts actions had no legal validity whatsoever because Argentina had neither inherited the Falklands from Spain(in which case Jewett's actions would have been unnecessary legally), nor were they Terra Nullius.
..........“Tierra del fuego was not made a province till 1990. That's why it didn't have a governor until then.”...........
- Please, tell me something I don't know. Now you pretend to teach me the history of my country. GET OUT OF HERE!
..........“That doesn't mean it didn't have any authorities.”.........
- The authority of “Territorio Nacional de Tierra del Fuego” was the federal government in B.A.
Actually, Territorios Nacionales did have governors, but they were appointed by the federal government, rather than elected by the population. However, they did exercise their functions in the respective territories. Plus the territories had municipal authorities. There were no Argentines of any nature or capacity whatsoever in the Falklands in 1825.
.........“Yes, they were. They were disputed between UK and Spain. In 1833 neither country had yet relinquished its claim.”.........
- BULLSHIT!!!! CRAP!!!!! You relinquished your contrived claim in 1771 with the agreement with Spain.
see above.
...........“United Provinces of South America was an alternative name for United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata”.........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- That was never official. I'm still right!
Good luck!
“Provincias Unidas en Sud América” was the name used in the declaration of independence:
http://es.wikisource.org/wiki/Acta_de_Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_la_Independencia_Argentina
so you are wrong.
JUSTIN, i have been reeding an interview in argentine magazine called newsweek, there is a note to an argentine profesor who lives in oxford, he works for the university from that city, hes name is Esteban cichelo Hubner, he proposed to hes piupirls to find a solution to the malvinas-falklands conflict, most then finally proposed to create a protectorate betwen argentina and the u.k., but the islands would be autonomous, arg and the u.k., only would be give them defence, all the rest of the policys, would be in the hands of the islanders, in the islands would flame the three flags, the islanders would and argentine passport two, but the most important for the islanders, is that they will keep on being as autonomous as now, i think it's a great idea, even much better than what i propose, what's your opinion?.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As long as both sides dont understand that the solution must benefit both, i think we will keep on having more problems like this in the future.
J. A. ROBERT, i ought an aswer since many days ago.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly about the viceroalty, as we all know, the u.p. didn't inherite anything from spain, but the malvinas were just one more part of viceroalty like anyother, if i take whay you said, then we could not excersice our right in any part of the ex vicerolty.
The fact that the u.p. didn't inherite anything from spain it does not mean that we can't excersise our sovereign rights on our territory, we had right to declare our independence , and no matter what spain said.
About the nations that joined the viceroalty, for the last time, if those nations decided to separate part from the u.p., that was because they were not intereted on any sovereign link with the it, in fact, they never made any mention to a soposed claim over the malvinas, beside they hav allways soported our claim, so, they lost their rights, is it so difficult to understand?.
About the patagonia, that territory was under the jurisdition from buenos aires, this jurisdiction was the most extensive from the viceroalty, bs as had it's jurisdiction since bs as untill up tierra del fuego, including the malvinas islands.
Anyway just a few citys from the patagonia wer populated by the spanish settlers, most patagonia was in the hands of the pueblos originarios.
I agree that it was an abuse to steal their lands by julio roca, but it was made inside of our country, besideyour argument is really ridicolous, because the historys of everynation are full of abuses of power, if bretain despoiled us from the islands, like them or not, we will keep on claiming, notwithstanding the u.k. cleans it's ass with our protests. Sooner or later the three parts will have to understand that the solution must benefit all the parts, not only the u.k., and the islanders.
About a soposed claim by chile, actually chile didn't have any right on the patagonia, the chileans who were in that territory, were not even residents, those people only used to cross the border, because they were
J. A. ROBERT, i continue, those chileans were interested on the traffic of cattle.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About peron, this is evident that you are so ignorant, as i told you before, i recognize that he was demagogue and authoritarian, but no one made as much as him for the poors and the workers, obviously in that time my country was reacher than now, but if you compare our recent situation with the crisis of 2001, we are much more equal now, that crisis left a 53% of poors, and a 22% of unemploit people, now we have 33% of poors, and 10% of unemploit people, (these numbers belong to private stadistics, i dont beleive in the indec neather), as you can see we are still a very unequal society, but we are in the way to improve in spite of our shamefull politicians.
I dont know what kind of decline do you mean when you talk about peron, before him the workers had nothing, the argentina of the centenery, was just a corporative nations, where a few reach familys were the owners of the productions, and people paid very expensive for the wheat to consume, anyway the country was prosperous, but the workers didn't have any benefice, as i told you before, the most important for me, is the social justice, since peron's times, untill 1975, the workers represented the 50% of the national rent, and there was a 78% of middle class, i respect your opinion, but luckilly we are very different, and i dont agree with you in absolut.
Axel
Mar 25th, 2010 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the islands and the islanders are left alone to determine their own future I don't care whatever face saving measure to spare Argentina's blushes is employed. Britain has no interest other than ensure the islanders self-determination.
Axel - “ ... but the islands would be autonomous, arg and the u.k., only would be give them defence, all the rest of the policys, would be in the hands of the islanders, ...”
Mar 26th, 2010 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0They have that now, without the need for Argentina's contribution obviously.
And you are wrong. There are not 3 portions that need to be satisfied, only one ... the islanders. They are close to independence now ... that is the only logical solution.
Found this - “Among the international community, with the notable exception of Argentina and some of its regional allies, there is no argument that these islands are possessions of the U.K. The Falklands are British by choice, and have been since 1833, and of the roughly 3,000 inhabitants, nearly all are British by birth or descent. They are self-governing and largely self-financing, that is of course except for defence costs which paradoxically, are essential in order to protect the population from its bellicose neighbour on the South American mainland.
Mar 26th, 2010 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The sabre-rattling on behalf of the Argentine government is ridiculous and laughable, to say nothing of being factually dishonest, and economically expedient. But perhaps the most telling barometer of international opinion and precedence is that the United Nations does not accept the legitimacy of the sovereignty claims made by the Argentine government. The American people understand the importance that the British people attach to maintaining British sovereignty over the Falklands” - Congressman John Campbell is a Member of United States House of Representatives
So much for supposed US support, and that of the UN too.....
Axel, you seem confused. You say that the Falklands and Patagonia were “your territory”, even though you concede that you could not inherit anything from Spain. Well if you could not inherit anything from Spain then Patagonia and the Falklands were NOT your territory at the time of independence. The only way for them to become your territory was for you to gain control over those places. You managed to do that by force in Patagonia - to claim that the pueblos originarios were “inside” your country is simply dishonest. In 1833 “Buenos Aires” did not effectively control the territory south of the Salado del Sur. That is a fact! That process of taking Patagonia did not finalise until the early 1980s when you eventually made agreements with Chile. You did NOT gain control of the Falkland Islands. The Falklands were never Argentine territory. Your claim has no foundation. You can continue claiming them if you like, but nobody takes you seriously. Not even your allies, as we saw at the Group of Rio summit in Mexico earlier this year.
Mar 26th, 2010 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I dated the start of Argentina's relative decline to the 1940s and once again you duck that simple fact. I know Argentina is more equal today than it was then, but per capita you have less than you had then. Each Argentine, on average, is poorer now than they were in the 1940s. Argentina went from the 5th largest economy in the late 1930s to about the 30th largest economy TODAY. That is a relative decline no matter how equal you are today. Just agree with that simple fact!
.....”So Jorgelito (nacido en 1982 y todavia en pañales) agrees the Nootka Sound Convention is irrelevant to the Malvinas issue. Good!“.....
Mar 26th, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Crap!!! Y pañales vas a tener que usar vos cuando te agarre HDP!!!!
.....”Jorge! - you seem to have this same hangup about 1770/71. Let me try one last time to put you right. In 1770 the Spanish were strong enough to push the British off the Falkland Islands. As a result there was nearly a war over the issue. Then there were talks and SPAIN BACKED DOWN, leaving the British to return. No secret clauses, no abandonment of rights. If the Spanish had held their position then there would have been conflict ... so they didn't. The British returned to the Falklands and the issue of sovereignty was ignored....
- Only restoration of Post Egmont, not whole Malvinas and with the promise to leave.
Spain had sovereignty over Malvinas, even recognized by France. Your settlement in Port Egmont was clandestine!!!!! Get over it!
....“The Britsih the maintained a settlement till 1774. Then they 'popped out' for 60 years. No abandonment of the claim, just not regularly there.”....
- You are right, you didn't abandon your claim because you didn't have any!!!!
....“Jewett did not raise an Argentine flag because Argentina by that name did not exist.”....
- Still talking about my country, so what you say is irrelevant.
...“Hotyred, the British didn't pop out for 60 years, thats another element of Argentine myth making. In reality, the British were actively exploiting the resources in the islands whilst the Spanish could only look on and whine about it.”....
- British whalers are not government's officials and if they were, that would have been ilegal.
....“Jorge, the point is Argentina never controlled the Falklands. If the Argentine claim is allegedly so strong, why do you have to exagerrate so much?”....
- I don't understand what you mean Justin.
Do not confuse my way of conversing with you with lack of arguments!
.............“Jorge can you please clarify a couple of your points for me?
Mar 26th, 2010 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say “They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them. We are the only ones who can let them be independent, not you.” in referrence to the Falkland Islanders.
You also say that Argentina were not a 3rd party so Nootka does not apply.
Can you please clarify for me then when you believe Argentina became an independant state?.............
- Could you be clearer??!!?. I don't understand, if you explain better, I'll answer you.
.........”Only if we refer back to your argument that “It is up to Argentina to grant indepedence to Falklanders as only you can let them be independant” then Agrentina was not indpendent until recognised by Spain in 1859.
So when was Argentina independant 1816 or 1859?“.......
- Ah I know what are you are trying to say, but your comparion does not make any sense. We were subjugated people, islanders didn't. They are descendents of colonizers.
........”@LegionNi nice one but you can bet on a spot of Double Think from Jorge to justify it, without spotting the obvious hypocrisy.“......
- Nice one????? pssssssss!!!!!!!!!
Hypocrisy???? Are you talking about yourself?!?!?!
..........”Thank you for the corrections Justin - always learning.“........
- lol. Congratulations Justin. Your brain-washer machine is working!!!!
..........”So if the Falkanders declare their independence by your own arguement here they do not need your permission even if you did have soverignty of the islands. It is no different to what your country men did in 1816.”........
- Sorry, but it is very different, We were opressed people and they weren't. At the time, they were the opressor.
Try another thing!
...........”Jorge your comments:
Mar 26th, 2010 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious) ”
PLUS
“They cannot be independent since Argentina never granted that to them. We are the only ones who can let them be independent, not you.”
EQUALS
Hypocrite“...........
- Spain were exercising sovereignty over us. We are not exercising sovereignty over Malvinas, they are not being opressed by us. One thing has nothing to do with the other.
Hypocrite?!?!?! Are you looking at the mirror????
..........””We were a nation in 1816, no matter if Spain recognized it or not.
We took our independence by force. Spain didn't need to recognize us as a nation. (obvious) ”
So you were a 3rd power then and Nootka applies.“...........
- Yes, we were a nation in 1816, but not for your Nootka Sound Convention. Sorry man, Argentina was not a third power, so sad for you.
........”well said
what it is, is that jorge thinks there is one set of rules for them, and another for the islanders, in reality he is so brainwashed bu what comes out hes mouth he cant see the light,
but really jorge, i would like your answer to that, why is it ok for you to claim your independence by force, as you openly stated, yet the islanders must be “granted it by argentina” do you see them as inferior to you? do you think your better than the islanders? your not, you call us ignorent jorge, but your the one who refers to the british as “there all pirates” and thieves and what ever else you think, yet its you who is generlising a whole nation wich is over 5 million individual people as all the same, in your case pirates, that jorge is ignorence”.........
- ROFLMAO. Body, you are ignorant, look at your own writing. lol.
........“It is now quite obvious to me that you have never read the Nootka Sound Convention. Yes, it is irrelevant to the Falklands issue, because Nootka is irrelevant to the Falklands. But Spain settling in San Clemente del Tuyú is very relevant to Nootka because Nootka prohibited Spain from settling there.”........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Could you please tell me something regarding Malvinas?!?!?!?!
........““cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands”.”.......
- Have you got a prior right of sovereignty???? NOT!!!!!!
Your settlement in Port egmont was clandestine.
........“Claiming a territory is not the same thing as having effect”.....
- We claimed it, sent several expeditions there and apointed several governors. Is it not enough for you?!?!?!
........”And Jewetts actions had no legal validity whatsoever because Argentina had neither inherited the Falklands from Spain(in which case Jewett's actions would have been unnecessary legally), nor were they Terra Nullius.“.......
- Argentina didn't ”inherit“ Tucuman, but we were there, like in Malvinas, you disgusting pirate!!!!
..........”Actually, Territorios Nacionales did have governors, but they were appointed by the federal government, rather than elected by the population.”.........
- As federal government could remove them, The real authority was the federal government.
Like in your country. Your queen could remove the government if she want and could remove the bunch of clown who call themselves councillors in Malvinas.
........“It is now quite obvious to me that you have never read the Nootka Sound Convention. Yes, it is irrelevant to the Falklands issue, because Nootka is irrelevant to the Falklands. But Spain settling in San Clemente del Tuyú is very relevant to Nootka because Nootka prohibited Spain from settling there.”........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Could you please tell me something regarding Malvinas?!?!?!?!
........““cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands”.”.......
- Have you got a prior right of sovereignty???? NOT!!!!!!
Your settlement in Port egmont was clandestine.
........“Claiming a territory is not the same thing as having effect”.....
- We claimed it, sent several expeditions there and apointed several governors. Is it not enough for you?!?!?!
........”And Jewetts actions had no legal validity whatsoever because Argentina had neither inherited the Falklands from Spain(in which case Jewett's actions would have been unnecessary legally), nor were they Terra Nullius.“.......
- Argentina didn't ”inherit“ Tucuman, but we were there, like in Malvinas, you disgusting pirate!!!!
..........”Actually, Territorios Nacionales did have governors, but they were appointed by the federal government, rather than elected by the population.”.........
- As federal government could remove them, The real authority was the federal government.
Like in your country. Your queen could remove the government if she want and could remove the bunch of clown who call themselves councillors in Malvinas.
.........““Provincias Unidas en Sud América” was the name used in the declaration of independence:
Mar 26th, 2010 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0es.wikisource.org/wiki/Acta_de_Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_la_Independencia_Argentina
so you are wrong.”........
- This is from wikipedia,
“”“””It is best known, in Spanish literature, as Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (English: United Provinces of the Río de la Plata), this being the most common (occasionally the official) name in use for the country, until the enactment of the 1826 Constitution. Moreover, this is currently one of the official designations for Argentina, as stated in the Argentine Constitution, Article 35. [1]“”“”
Good Luck
........“It is now quite obvious to me that you have never read the Nootka Sound Convention. Yes, it is irrelevant to the Falklands issue, because Nootka is irrelevant to the Falklands. But Spain settling in San Clemente del Tuyú is very relevant to Nootka because Nootka prohibited Spain from settling there.”........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Could you please tell me something regarding Malvinas?!?!?!?!
FFS Jorge, it was you who asked for an explanation about San Clemente del Tuyú and I gave it to you.
........““cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands”.”.......
- Have you got a prior right of sovereignty???? NOT!!!!!!
Your settlement in Port egmont was clandestine.
Based on what international law in existence at the time was the settlement clandestine?
........“Claiming a territory is not the same thing as having effect”.....
- We claimed it, sent several expeditions there and apointed several governors. Is it not enough for you?!?!?!
No, it is not. We are talking about establishing effective control over the entire archipelago, not just a small part of it such as Port Louis. Argentina never appointed any governors, Vernet was appointed civil and military commandant in June 1829 he left in November 1831. Mestivier was in the Falklands for only 24 days.
........”And Jewetts actions had no legal validity whatsoever because Argentina had neither inherited the Falklands from Spain(in which case Jewett's actions would have been unnecessary legally), nor were they Terra Nullius.“.......
- Argentina didn't ”inherit“ Tucuman, but we were there, like in Malvinas, you disgusting pirate!!!!
My point here was specifically about Jewett's act of claiming the Falklands. It had no legal validity. I take it you are incapable of refuting what I say. Hence your outburst. And Argentina established effective control of Tucuman. If it hadn't, Tucuman today wouldn't be part of Argentina.
.......
..........”Actually, Territorios Nacionales did have governors, but they were appointed by the federal government, rather than elected by the population.”.........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- As federal government could remove them, The real authority was the federal government.
Like in your country. Your queen could remove the government if she want and could remove the bunch of clown who call themselves councillors in Malvinas.
It may have been a federal authority, but it was present in the territory. The federally appointed governor exercised his functions in the territory. There was absolutely no one from Argentina in the Falklands in 1825. And the Queen has no power to remove any government anywhere. You really have no idea how a constitutional monarchy works.
- This is from wikipedia,
Mar 26th, 2010 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”“””It is best known, in Spanish literature, as Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata (English: United Provinces of the Río de la Plata), this being the most common (occasionally the official) name in use for the country, until the enactment of the 1826 Constitution. Moreover, this is currently one of the official designations for Argentina, as stated in the Argentine Constitution, Article 35. [1]“”“”
Good Luck
This from the Spanish wikipedia:
Provincias Unidas en Sudamérica,[1] o Provincias Unidas de Sudamérica,[2] fue el primer nombre oficial que adoptaron los territorios del antiguo Virreinato del Río de la Plata en 1816, después de declarar su independencia de España. El nombre fue utilizado hasta que la Constitución de 1826 adoptó el nombre República Argentina. También se utilizaba el nombre “Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata”.
So you are still wrong
Jorge - - “..Only restoration of Post Egmont, not whole Malvinas and with the promise to leave.
Mar 27th, 2010 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain had sovereignty over Malvinas, even recognized by France. Your settlement in Port Egmont was clandestine!!!!! Get over it!...”
Show me where it says that Jorge ...... France and Spain were both Bourbon at the time but strangely enough it was France's reluctance to go to war that forced Spain to back down .... that's BACK DOWN Jorge!
Jorge! - “ ...- Have you got a prior right of sovereignty???? NOT!!!!!!
Your settlement in Port egmont was clandestine...”
Yeah right ... hidden under a rock !
Jorge ! - “.........““Provincias Unidas en Sud América” was the name used in the declaration of independence:
es.wikisource.org/wiki/Acta_de_Declaraci%C3%B3n_de_la_Independencia_Argentina
so you are wrong.”........”
Thanks for that Jorge .. Jewett claimed the islands for the United Provinces of South America so, according to you, he was NOT claiming them for Argentina ! Sadly I suspect that Dab is correct.
jorge you ugly little argentine, you never answerd my question, i have three,
Mar 27th, 2010 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 01. why isit your country can “take there independence” by force, but you reckon the falklanders must be granted it? do you think your better than them? dont ignore it this time jorgie boy
2. do they beat you up in your country for crying so much, i mean its ok to cry, but we can all tell by your writings on here that you are pouring your sensitive little heart out, maybe its your time of the month?
3. do you mind if i call you tarado entrenado? or would you prefer chico de coño? i mean they both suite you, but i want your opinion, wich do you preffer?
Dab said:
Mar 27th, 2010 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Well, if you actually bothered to read Nootka, which I doubt you have, you would see that article VI was a reciprocal article, and that not only was GB forbidden to settle in places south of what Spain already had, Spain was also forbidden to settle in those places. San Clemente del Tuyú is directly south of what is now Uruguay so When Spain began to settle there in late 18th, early 19th centuries, it was in breach of that article.”
To which Jorgelito replied:
“I know where San Clemente is!!!!! I live in Argentina. What you say about that is irrelevant to Malvinas issue.”
[clearly implying that the Nootka Sound Convention had no relevance to the Falkland Islands]
Archibalito wrote:
”So Jorgelito (nacido en 1982 y todavia en pañales) agrees the Nootka Sound Convention is irrelevant to the Malvinas issue. Good!“
And the best Jorgelito (nacido en 1982 y todavia en pañales) could come up with was:
“Crap!!! Y pañales vas a tener que usar vos cuando te agarre HDP!!!!”
To quote Dab and in reply to el jovencito Jorgelito: “I take it you are incapable of refuting what I say. Hence your outburst.”
........“FFS Jorge, it was you who asked for an explanation about San Clemente del Tuyú and I gave it to you.”.......
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I thought it was linked to the issue, but it's not.
.......“- Have you got a prior right of sovereignty???? NOT!!!!!!
Your settlement in Port egmont was clandestine.
Based on what international law in existence at the time was the settlement clandestine?”........
- Here take a look,
“”“In 1749 Spain received news of a British project to settle the Malvinas Islands and strongly protested to the government of Great Britain which as a consequence decided against it.
When in 1764 France established Port Louis on Soledad Island, Spain objected and won the recognition of its rights to the islands from France. The French government ordered the evacuation and handover of the settlement to the Spanish authorities. The handover was made in 1767 and from then on a Spanish governor responsible to Buenos Aires was resident in the Malvinas Islands.
The year after the French settlement, a clandestine British expedition arrived in the archipelago and in 1766 English sailors established a fort at a place they named Port Egmont on an island to the west of Gran Malvina. Despite the secrecy of the British government, Spain became aware of it and insisted on protesting its rights. Not receiving an acceptable response, it set out to find the illegal settlement and in 1770 expelled the settlers by force. As a result of that act, both countries were on the verge of war, which was averted by a bilateral agreement signed in 1771.”“”
“”“This agreement consisted of a Declaration by which Spain returned Port Egmont to the British in order to save the honour of the King of England, making express reservation of its sovereignty over the whole of the Malvinas Islands, and also of an Acceptance of this Declaration in which Great Britain remained silent as to the reservation of Spanish rights. As part of the agreement it was verbally agreed that the English would withdraw from Port Egmont, which they did in 1774. From then on the Spanish authorities in Puerto Soledad continued to exercise their jurisdiction and control over the whole of the archipelago.”“”
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finaly,
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“”In 1790, with the signing of the Treaty of San Lorenzo at the El Escorial, Great Britain undertook not to establish any settlements on either the eastern or the western coasts of South America or on the adjacent islands already occupied by Spain such as the Malvinas Islands.“”.
- I'm starting to get tired of this!
.........“- We claimed it, sent several expeditions there and apointed several governors. Is it not enough for you?!?!?!
No, it is not. We are talking about establishing effective control over the entire archipelago, not just a small part of it such as Port Louis. Argentina never appointed any governors, Vernet was appointed civil and military commandant in June 1829 he left in November 1831. Mestivier was in the Falklands for only 24 days.”............
- Again, I don't need to be sleeping in different parts of my house (e.g. Garage) to know I'm in my house for god sake!!!!
there are many parts of Alaska uninhabited, why don't you take them???? (using your logic)
.........“My point here was specifically about Jewett's act of claiming the Falklands. It had no legal validity.”........
- Sccording to who???? Just because you say it???
.........“I take it you are incapable of refuting what I say.”........
- I'm doing it for a while now!!!!!!!!!!
......“And Argentina established effective control of Tucuman. If it hadn't, Tucuman today wouldn't be part of Argentina.”........
- Who knows!!!!! You???? Please!!!!
........“There was absolutely no one from Argentina in the Falklands in 1825.”.......
- There was in 1833 when you invaded, disgusting pirate!!!!
.........“And the Queen has no power to remove any government anywhere. You really have no idea how a constitutional monarchy works.”.......
- LOL
...“This from the Spanish wikipedia:
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Provincias Unidas en Sudamérica,[1] o Provincias Unidas de Sudamérica,[2] fue el primer nombre oficial que adoptaron los territorios del antiguo Virreinato del Río de la Plata en 1816, después de declarar su independencia de España. El nombre fue utilizado hasta que la Constitución de 1826 adoptó el nombre República Argentina. También se utilizaba el nombre “Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata”.
So you are still wrong”....
- then Wikipedia is full of contradictions. Anyway, The official names were/are “Provincias Unidas del Río de La plata” and “Argentina”.
Endo of story!!!!
You're still wrong!
150 Hoytred, I told you I wouldn't debate with you anymore. You are not a thinking person and I really doubt you are a person.
....“jorge you ugly little argentine, you never answerd my question, i have three,
1. why isit your country can “take there independence” by force, but you reckon the falklanders must be granted it? do you think your better than them? dont ignore it this time jorgie boy”....
- Ugly and little????? Why??? I've been with several woman who wouldn't agree with you. If you introduce me your wife, she wouldn't agree with you.
I responded your stupid questions. They were never opressed people, they are descendents of opressors.
...“2. do they beat you up in your country for crying so much, i mean its ok to cry, but we can all tell by your writings on here that you are pouring your sensitive little heart out, maybe its your time of the month?”....
- Why don't you come over to beat me up???? Do you have the b*lls???
My time of the month??? How much do you know about that??? Did your mom tell you about those things that you don't know yet??? Did your mom tell you how human beings come to life??? lol.
...“3. do you mind if i call you tarado entrenado?”....
- Coming from you???? I don't mind.
Do you mind if I call you p*nsy ass????
.......“or would you prefer chico de coño?”.........
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Coño? mmmmm.... We don't use very much that word over these latitudes. That's very spanish!!!!
You would know it if you weren't so ignorant and analfabet!!!!!!!!!
.........“To which Jorgelito replied:
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I know where San Clemente is!!!!! I live in Argentina. What you say about that is irrelevant to Malvinas issue.”
[clearly implying that the Nootka Sound Convention had no relevance to the Falkland Islands]”.........
- That's bullshit Archibald!!!! You know what I meant. Enseguida te prendés de lo que los otros escriben. A vos cualquier tren te queda bien no?
...”And the best Jorgelito (nacido en 1982 y todavia en pañales) could come up with was:
“Crap!!! Y pañales vas a tener que usar vos cuando te agarre HDP!!!!”
To quote Dab and in reply to el jovencito Jorgelito: “I take it you are incapable of refuting what I say. Hence your outburst.””....
- I responded his crap with arguments.
jajaja cuando te agarre Archibald, vas a desear no haber nacido. ufff!
Andas por acá cerca no??? o será el inodoro???
........“FFS Jorge, it was you who asked for an explanation about San Clemente del Tuyú and I gave it to you.”.......
Mar 27th, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I thought it was linked to the issue, but it's not.
If Nootka includes the Falklands then it is related, if Nootka doesn't include the Falklands then it is not related.
Do not get confuse dab14763 and do not try to confuse!
Mar 28th, 2010 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bye
Jorge!
Mar 28th, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The message that Dab is trying to get into your thick head is that if the Nootka Sound Convention applies to the Falkland Islands then Spain breached the Convention first by its actions at San Clements. Once breached by Spain, Britain was no longer constrained by the treaty.
Either way, whether Nootka applied to the Falklands or not, they were certainly not Argentine territory.
Mar 28th, 2010 - 10:03 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!