MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ oil dispute: Argentina presents its case and backgrounds to OAS
Argentina presented before the Organization of American States, OAS, documents on recent British decisions and actions referred to the disputed Falkland Islands and requested they be made public to all members of the OAS General Assembly. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThe Argentine Government continues to lobby all and sundrie with the oft repeated misinformation in support of a claim that nobody really believes and which has no chance of success. The British Government on the other hand, has given up arguing as it can do no more than repeat what has been said a million times since Argentina remembered it's claim in the 1940's i.e. there is no doubt as to British sovereignty.
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0That said, the oil exploration licences have been issued by the Falkland Islands Government, not that of the UK. The UK does not have any 'unilateral initiatives' as the decision lies with the Falkland Islands Government. Argentina should be talking to the Falkland Islands Government if it has a problem.
Of course, if Argentina hadn't dropped out of the talks in 2007 ........ ??
How can a decision be “unilateral” when Argentina agreed to it in 1995? The unilateral decision was Argentine, when it withdrew from accords and now looks like it will miss out. It really is time South America stopped pandering to Argentine pretensions with sympathetic platitudes, a real friend tells you when you're wrong.
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina? Who or what is that? Some sort of Spanish colony, isn't it? Background based on stealing a country from its native inhabitants, imposing a religion by means of Inquisitorial torture and murder and harbouring war criminals. (Note that Germany hasn't forgotten its Lebensraum ambitions!) So, what if the UK does have to defend the Falklands again? The UK can do that. The UK let Argentina off lightly last time. It's nice that the Argentine government says it will not resort to force. But why is it allowing its DEFEATED ex-soldiers to make much-publicized threats? So that force can be used whilst the Argentine government holds up its hands in horror? The UK should be straightforward. The UK understands the Argentine position. It would help if Argentina removed the clause in its constitution relating to the Falkland Islands. The clause is inflammatory and provocative. Inappropriate behaviour on the part of any Argentine nationals should result in the complete destruction of the Argentine Navy, Merchant Marine and Air Force. And a message to the OAS, you haven't seen the UK annoyed since 1939-45.
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry. I should have included a message to any Argentine inhabitants of ethnic British origin. If you support the attitude of the current Argentine rulers, that's fine. You're with them. If you think they are wrong, emigrate. Quickly.
Mar 23rd, 2010 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0agent 4...I dont know where you live but, where I live, I have no problems, I dont need to be ashamed, nor need to go into hiding. Nether I nor people within my sphere support the politics and rhetoric of this govenment. You will find that, the most vociferous are the right wing fanatics, whereas the majority remain relatively silent. Why are they silent? it's because they know that they are led by donkeys.
Mar 24th, 2010 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In all fairness Globetrotter ... we are all led by donkeys !
Mar 24th, 2010 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines of british origin are not different of us and british people living here supports us! That's include some islanders too!!!!!!!!!!
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please refer to which Islanders support said cause? I think it's in the minus digits I beleive Jorge?
Mar 24th, 2010 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From my understanding and conversations with Argentines of British origin, they seem to be the ones who take the most pragmatic view of the whole arguement, they neither support nor disagree.
The fact remains the majority don't want to be Argentine, they don't want to be a part of Argentina, that should end it, but sadly it would appear not?
Perhaps we should be admitting the Falklands to teh OAS, they are a unique country and Nation within the South Atlantic, they could have alot to offer many small opressed communities in South America.
I'm sure human rights and common moral decency are guiding factors of the OAS, but some won't play ball on this issue, how sad.
...........“Please refer to which Islanders support said cause? I think it's in the minus digits I beleive Jorge? ”.........
Mar 25th, 2010 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Islanders living in Argentina like Jacobo Betts and Yolanda Bertrand. They got out of there and can express freely since a while.
Jacobo Betts studied during 70's the history of Malvinas and said: “many islanders in Malvinas admited privately that argentine case was strong, but publicly was a different story”.
..........“The fact remains the majority don't want to be Argentine, they don't want to be a part of Argentina, that should end it, but sadly it would appear not?”...........
- sorry man, it doesn't work that way. We couldn't go to your country, expell you, bring more and more argentines and eventually claim self-determination for us.
People's wishes argument??? What about the wishes of argentines who lived there in 1833. They didn't want to be part of UK. Did UK respect that??? Of course not!
That's whre your self-determination argument makes water.
........“Perhaps we should be admitting the Falklands to teh OAS”.......
- Impossible. They are part of Argentina.
...........“they are a unique country and Nation within the South Atlantic.”..........
- Sorry, they are not a nation. they are just pirates' descendents who refuse to recognize they live in stolen land.
...........“they could have alot to offer many small opressed communities in South America.”..........
- Being descendents of pirates??? I don't think so.
..........“I'm sure human rights and common moral decency are guiding factors of the OAS”............
- That's why they support us.
Are you british??? If so, you shoudn't be talking about human rights and moral decency. Specially knowing your history. Shame on you!
THE BRITISH-SPANISH CONFLICT, 1770.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The clandestine British garrison (at Port Egmont) was localized and its occupants were intimidated to abandon Saunders Island. In view of the intruders negative to comply with this, the Spanish government adopted a firmer attitude and, at the same time a more dangerous one. In February of 1768, the Spanish King ordered the Governor of Buenos Aires, Francisco de Paula Bucarelli, to “not permit any kind of establishment by the British (in the Islands) and: those that may already exist should be expelled by force when admonishments were not taken heed of.”
Bucarelli expulses the British Garrison.
During this interval, the opposing forces encountered one another while circumnavigating the Islands. A Spanish schooner was intercepted by a British frigate, whose Commanding Officer sustained the “the islands were a British possession and no other sovereign State could claim their pertinence.”
On being informed of the encounter and the statement made by the British Frigate’s Commander, the Spanish Governor at Port Louis dispatched his ship once more giving instructions to his Captain that he should reaffirm the Spanish sovereignty over the islands and warn the intruders that they should leave Port Egmont forthwith. But, the reprimands fell on deaf ears. Accordingly, Ruiz Puente asked for reinforcements from Buenos Aires. A small fleet was sent to Port Egmont under the command of Juan Ignacio Madariaga who forced the British capitulation on the 10th June 1770. three weeks later, the British garrison abandoned its installations on Saunders Island.
The 1771 Agreement and the abandonment of Port Egmont in 1774.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0When 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 furtively so as to not call Spain’s attention to wh
ooppss. It was cut!
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0A fascinating history lesson Jorgelito (nacido en 1982), thank you. But it has absolutely not relevance to the Argentine claim.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - you are just repeating the inaccurate peerception of history as taught in Argentine schools. It's been discredited. It carries no weight. Forget it!
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0The remains no problem and nothing to discuss !!!
“ ...the British establishment on Saunders was clandestine, organized under the major secrecy and hidden during the longest time possible....”
Mar 25th, 2010 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey jorge! what did you think we did ... hid the settlement under a couple of rocks ?? lol
” ...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).”
Mar 25th, 2010 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the basis of this promise, Spain allowed the British to return ...“
What satisfaction Jorge! ???? ( ”...I can't get no oo satisfaction ...” - the Rolling Stones did it better:-)
“... and assured her the undisputed dominion over the territory... ” - yeah right, the Spanish are forced to back down so that the one other claimant can return to the islands (the alternative being war) and this somehow gives Spain 'undisputed dominion'. As conclusions go, this one is well off the wall !!
The Spanish did not ALLOW the British to return ..... they had no choice !!!
” ... 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.... ”
Where's this come from then ? ... what exactly does the original paperwork say ??? Show me the details otherwise I'll suspect that someone made this up! .....
Clandestine my ar#se !
Jacob Betts was a Falkland Islander, he was very bitter about the economic stagnation in the islands, blaming Britain for the situation. In that respect he was probably correct as the FCO actively conspired with the Argentine Government to encourage dependence on Argentina and refused to allow a number of measures that would have allowed the economy to grow. He has two brothers, one is known for his bravery in assisting 3 Para on the assault on Mount Longdon, the other as a merchant seaman volunteered for Operation Corporate to liberate the Falklands from occupation.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jacob chose to collaborate with the Argentine forces, then chose to leave with them; leaving behind a daughter. Ever since the Argentine Government has made much of this family tragedy.
Yolanda Bertrand on the other hand is not a Falkland Islander, her family emigrated to Patagonia in the early 20th Century, when the islands were known as the Islas Falkland in Argentina. Even by Argentine standards its a bit tenuous to claim she is a Falkland Islander.
As regards Mr Betts little diatribe.
a) The settlement was not clandestine, thats a rather foolish device to try and minimise its legitimacy. The 1771 agreement recognised Britains rights, which is why so many go to the trouble of alleging a “secret” agreement.
b) There is no documentary proof that Lord North said any such thing, it was the Spanish who proposed a face saving deal whereby both sides agreed to abandon the islands and it was the British that refused. Much is made of a supposed secret agreement but not one shred of documentary proof has been provided. Goebel went to great lengths to try and prove its existence and failed.
c) Spain's dominion? Utter bollocks to be frank. Spain never controlled anything beyond Puerto Soledad, which it maintained as a penal colony. Your own archives show this to be a lie where the Spanish Governor complains of the extensive British presence.
9 Jorge, ever heard of “los desaparecidos”? can you recall what Argentina was remembering yesterday? Before you start to lecture on human rights, and Argentine rights, I would like to suggest that you read the main national newspapers...La Nación, La Voz. Perhaps it will give you a bit of an idea what democracy is about, and why it is sacred in our changing world.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0-Ah so 2 indiviuals then? Is that all? one traitorous nasty piece of work, and an immigrant from Argentina, oh Jorge your running out of straws to grasp at!
Mar 25th, 2010 - 11:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0-“sorry man, it doesn't work that way. We couldn't go to your country, expell you, bring more and more argentines and eventually claim self-determination for us”
Eerm yes you could if you lived long enough kinda like what you’ve done in south America no?
People's wishes argument??? What about the wishes of argentines who lived there in 1833.
-So that justifies you doing the same then? How do you know they didn’t wish to be a part of the UK, if that were so why didn’t any leave then? The facts speak for themselves.
But anyway when did you start trying to use the opinions of 1833 as a basis for justifying Argentina’s colonialism, you’ve ignored indigenous opinions for 500 years, double standards eh? Brutal bully to those around you and then cry like a baby when you get slapped on the wrist for being a little thug.
“Impossible. They are part of Argentina”
-If that were true why is your government incapable of enacting legislation within them? But if they are a part of Argentina and Argentina is a member of OAS, then by your there already in?
“Sorry, they are not a nation. they are just pirates' descendents who refuse to recognize they live in stolen land”
-Ah right Pirates now! I thought they were Squatters 2 days ago! They are a nation like any one else, anyone I highly doubt that land you call Argentina was originally yours, was it stolen per chance?
“That's why they support us.Are you british??? If so, you shoudn't be talking about human rights and moral decency. Specially knowing your history. Shame on you!”
-Funny how those who support you, have dubious human rights records themselves? Take a look at your prime cheerleader Baboon face? I rest my case! And Britain can very talk about Human rights and moral decency, we granted self determination to all our colonies, we have some of the most liberal
social laws in the world, no dictators or Juntas since 1600, wrote the first human rights law the Magna Carta nearly 1,000 years before Argentina existed? A law and government system that is common basis in 100 different countries, we’re light years ahead of you!
Mar 25th, 2010 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Blast! Just put this in the wrong thread - excuse me if I repeat myself :-)
Mar 25th, 2010 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just 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.
As 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.
........“Jorge - you are just repeating the inaccurate peerception of history as taught in Argentine schools.”......
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I wasn't taught these agreements in school. Sorry man.
........”A fascinating history lesson Jorgelito (nacido en 1982), thank you. But it has absolutely not relevance to the Argentine claim.“..........
- Que te puedo decir Archibald..... lol. Nada como verás! Dejalo así.
.........”The remains no problem and nothing to discuss !!!”..........
- So, what are you doing here talking to me and trying (unsuccesfully) to discredit me?!?!
.........““ ...the British establishment on Saunders was clandestine, organized under the major secrecy and hidden during the longest time possible....”
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey jorge! what did you think we did ... hid the settlement under a couple of rocks ?? lol”......
- Read The history kid. Outside the british box, of course!
............”On the basis of this promise, Spain allowed the British to return ...“
What satisfaction Jorge! ???? ( ”...I can't get no oo satisfaction ...” - the Rolling Stones did it better:-)“.........
- The return of Port Egmont, just that, not Malvinas AND WITHOUT any kind of sovereignty. Oh now you are a rolinga!!!!
........”The Spanish did not ALLOW the British to return ..... they had no choice !!!“.........
- lol. How easily has your brain been washed!!!!! Unbelievable!
........”Where's this come from then ? ... what exactly does the original paperwork say ??? Show me the details otherwise I'll suspect that someone made this up!“.........
- Made up???? Your story is made up kid!
......”Clandestine my ar#se !”.......
- Your arse and your whole life is clandestine!
......“Jacob Betts was a Falkland Islander, he was very bitter about the economic stagnation in the islands, blaming Britain for the situation. In that respect he was probably correct as the FCO actively conspired with the Argentine Government to encourage dependence on Argentina and refused to allow a number of measures that would have allowed the economy to grow. He has two brothers, one is known for his bravery in assisting 3 Para on the assault on Mount Longdon, the other as a merchant seaman volunteered for Operation Corporate to liberate the Falklands from occupation.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jacob chose to collaborate with the Argentine forces, then chose to leave with them; leaving behind a daughter. Ever since the Argentine Government has made much of this family tragedy.”......
- lol. thanks for the story, but he came over because his son was studying here.
......“Yolanda Bertrand on the other hand is not a Falkland Islander, her family emigrated to Patagonia in the early 20th Century, when the islands were known as the Islas Falkland in Argentina. Even by Argentine standards its a bit tenuous to claim she is a Falkland Islander.”......
- Whome I have to believe about Mr Betts?? What Mr Betts says or what Mr Kuntz says????
What a dificult question!!!! lol.
.....”a) The settlement was not clandestine, thats a rather foolish device to try and minimise its legitimacy. The 1771 agreement recognised Britains rights, which is why so many go to the trouble of alleging a “secret” agreement.“.....
- Utter crap!!!!!! Not even you believe that!
.....”b) There is no documentary proof that Lord North said any such thing, it was the Spanish who proposed a face saving deal whereby both sides agreed to abandon the islands and it was the British that refused. Much is made of a supposed secret agreement but not one shred of documentary proof has been provided. Goebel went to great lengths to try and prove its existence and failed.”......
- Now, are you gonna say this is debatable?!?! lol
........”c) Spain's dominion? Utter bollocks to be frank. Spain never controlled anything beyond Puerto Soledad, which it maintained as a penal colony. Your own archives show this to be a lie where the Spanish Governor complains of the extensive British presence.“.......
Mar 25th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Bullshit!!!!!! Crap!!!!!
You were not beyonf Port Egmont.
.........”9 Jorge, ever heard of “los desaparecidos”? can you recall what Argentina was remembering yesterday? Before you start to lecture on human rights, and Argentine rights, I would like to suggest that you read the main national newspapers...La Nación, La Voz. Perhaps it will give you a bit of an idea what democracy is about, and why it is sacred in our changing world.“...........
- WTF! You are gonna tell me about human rights?!? Who the hell are you?!?!
I perfectly know what hapened on 24 March in 1976.
We've taken to court all our dictators of the last disctatorship!!!!!! How many countries could say the same?!?!
Sorry, but I don't read ”La Nación“ or ”La Voz”. They are full of lies.
Bye for now. I don't have much time to respond to your crap!
OMG! Rhaurie-Craughwell, how could you write too much crap in just a few lines?!?! I laughed a lot reading your comments 19 and 20.
Mar 25th, 2010 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is worthless to debate with you, but please, keep talking about my comments, It's priceless!!!!
British moral and decency?!?!?! ROFLMAO
http://en.mercopress.com/2007/01/29/former-islander-running-for-mayor-in-cordoba-village
Mar 25th, 2010 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The phrase talking out of your arse springs to mind. Both you and Mr Betts. The usual response from our little deluded friend is so simply shout insults. The proof is in your own archives, whats telling is you won't look.
Also includes the reason why Argentina won't go to the ICJ, telling isn't it.
Oh and I happen to know about Mr Betts as his cousin writes on this very site, you could ask him.
And Spain never did anything beyond Puerto Soledad, whilst the British were all around them. Happens to be true, shout all you like it doesn't change history.
Jorge! ”- So, what are you doing here talking to me and trying (unsuccesfully) to discredit me?!?! ..”
Mar 26th, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, I have no need to discredit you, you do it yourself with every word you utter. It is the Argentines who have been brainwashed. The original treaties and agreements together with contemporaneus records are available for all to see. As stated above, this is why the Argentine Government will not take its case to the ICJ. They cannot lie to the ICJ like they lie to their children.
You don't answer any of the many researched comments above, and apparently you're not inclined to believe anything but the screwed up history that you've dreamed up. Well dream on boy ...... as said before, that's all you've got ... distorted dreams.
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 - 12:47 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.....
......“The phrase talking out of your arse springs to mind. Both you and Mr Betts. The usual response from our little deluded friend is so simply shout insults. The proof is in your own archives, whats telling is you won't look.”.....
Mar 26th, 2010 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Thanks for the article, I wasn't a reader of MercoPress in 2007, I had no idea of it.
He says.....”life under the Argentine (military) dictatorship of the time was more democratic than life in the Islands“......
- He lived there and you didn't, he must be right!
The article says.....”It was in the late seventies while working in Stanley (Puerto Argentino) that Betts begun reading books about the “British usurpation of 1833” and Argentina's legitimate rights over the Malvinas, and then something changed.
- That's something I recomend all ecery islander to do!
He says.....“It was a liberating discovery, like taking off a weight off my back”.....
- All of you islanders could experience the same, just try it. One of you could!
He says....“my parents had the strong pro-British concept without knowing why”.....
- I am sure that's the case of the mayority of islanders.
He says.....“It's something that's passed on generation after generation: England has an absolute right over the territory and nobody questioned if it was true or not”.....
- Very true, that kind of things happen in small communitys.
The article says....“Convinced that the Malvinas and the other South Atlantic islands are Argentine, at the end of the article Betts is quoted saying he believes that the only legal path left for the sovereignty claim is the International Justice Court of The Hague. However the Argentine Foreign Affairs ministry resists the idea because ”you can't take to the ICJ a case over which you consider to have full rights“”.....
- He believes that and he has the right, however he is not on the government.
Justin “anti-argentine” Kuntz, Thanks so much for the article.
THE MORE I READ ABOUT HIS ISSUE; THE MORE I CONVINCE MYSELF OF OUR RIGHTS.
........“Jorge, I have no need to discredit you, you do it yourself with every word you utter.”......
Mar 26th, 2010 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0- I had to correct you several times kid! lol
.......“It is the Argentines who have been brainwashed.”........
- No. That idea comes from the british propaganda.
...........“The original treaties and agreements together with contemporaneus records are available for all to see.”.......
- Then read the 1771 agreement between your country and Spain. You gave up then your contrived claim.
Besides, France, the other power which established a settlement recognized Spanish sovereignty. END OF STORY!
........“As stated above, this is why the Argentine Government will not take its case to the ICJ.”........
- That's just a cheap speculation of the anti-argentine Justin!
..........“You don't answer any of the many researched comments above, and apparently you're not inclined to believe anything but the screwed up history that you've dreamed up.”.........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Untill now, I answered all your crap, but you know what, I won't do it any more, I don't the obligation nor the time to respond all your crap. Besides, I don't need to spend my time debating with someone who refuse to recognize that there is problem here. You are like a handicap person who is not concious of what is going on.
.........“Well dream on boy ...... as said before, that's all you've got ... distorted dreams.”.........
- I don't think so. I hope you live long enough to see the argentine flag waving in Malvinas again.
Bye poor ignorant!
Justin, remember this???
Mar 26th, 2010 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 017 jorge (#) Jan 07th, 2010 - 02:32 am
Justin, are you talking about ICJ?. You many times said the UK had offered to take the case Malvinas to ICJ. You can't deny that.
Now, that's a lie, because UK was talking about Malvinas dependencies and not Malvinas islands. If you tell a lie many times you are a LIAR!
You said once that you made your own research! LOL. You are funny.
31 JustinKuntz (#) Jan 07th, 2010 - 05:24 pm
Jorge,
First of all I said that Britain offered to take the issue of the Falkland Islands dependencies to the ICJ. It did, in 1947 and 1948. In 1955 it unilaterally referred the case to the ICJ, the ICJ accepted the case and did some preliminary work but abandoned it when the Argentine Government refused to accept its judgement.
Secondly, if Argentina is so confident of its case, there is nothing whatsoever to stop Argentina referring to the ICJ to ask it to present a judgement. Any nation can unilaterally refer a case to the ICJ for an opinion. Opinions are not binding but its clear why Argentina wouldn't go down that route; a negative would pull the rug from under their feet and in reality the Argentine Government knows it doesn't have a case.
So again no I did not lie, find me where I said the UK Government referred the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. In 1982 the UK Government suggested to the Argentine Government that they submit the dispute to arbitration at the ICJ in 1983 but some drunken idiot decided to invade the islands instead.
You said...“I did not lie, find me where I said the UK Government referred the Falklands dispute to the ICJ”...
37 jorge (#) Jan 09th, 2010 - 05:14 am (Edited)
well, the comment n°15 in the following link
en.mercopress.com/2009/06/18/argentina-has-only-shown-aggression-towards-the-falklands-says-summers
and those cases rejected by Argentina were in 1947, 1948 and 1955?
I reminded you about this yesterday and you run away like a rat!!!
Justin, your post in that link says:
Mar 26th, 2010 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 015 Justin Kuntz (#) Jun 22nd, 2009 - 05:14 am
Convictions?
Since the formation of the UN, the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. On each occasion it was Argentina that refused.
- So Justin??????? En que quedamos pibe?!?!?! LOL
Now this is funny!
I think I have more, I'll see.
Jorge! - “ ...The article says....“Convinced that the Malvinas and the other South Atlantic islands are Argentine, at the end of the article Betts is quoted saying he believes that the only legal path left for the sovereignty claim is the International Justice Court of The Hague. However the Argentine Foreign Affairs ministry resists the idea because ”you can't take to the ICJ a case over which you consider to have full rights“”.....”
Mar 26th, 2010 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now there's an interesting argument for not going to the ICJ ....... lol
Jorge! - “... Then read the 1771 agreement between your country and Spain. You gave up then your contrived claim...”
I have, together with the contemporaneus accounts ...... it's quite clear that neither Spain nor Britain gave up any right .... Spain however gave up territory!
Jorge! - “... I don't think so. I hope you live long enough to see the argentine flag waving in Malvinas again..”
Even I don't believe that I can live forever !
No problem Jorge .... keep dreaming :-)
Jorge,
Mar 26th, 2010 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0My comments said “FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES”, they're 100% correct. You really are dumb aren't you.
Falklands Dispute, so when did Argentina drop its foolish claim to the Falkland Island dependencies?
Don't see anyone running, except you round in circles.
Ah Jorge! perhaps you refuse to debate with me because you are incapable off, because my arguements and your replies make you like a complete wankshaft huh hun?
Mar 26th, 2010 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I mean so far the most compelling arguement you have given on the need to ignore Self determination concists of an obsession with squatters and Pirates, and a very lose interpretation of Territorial integrity, which you say is the main reason, but yet change your arguement to say thye main reason we must over turn centuries of human rights development is becuase they are squatters. And at the same time ignoring the fact that Argentina aquired 80% of it's current landmass through an act by your logic of piracey? Yet you are more entitled to that piece of land despite having lived there less years than the Falklanders have excercised their right to be British.
This is the great difference between you and me, I believe in human rights and progression, you beleive in turning the clock back to satisfy the collective national ego.
You continually say you never answer my “Crap” again but you continually crawl back like a fat little pup wanting more? one of these crap fetish people are you?
.........“Now there's an interesting argument for not going to the ICJ ....... lol”........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- When Presidents like George Bush and Tony Blair are taken to court for crimes against humanity I will believe in the imparciality of ICJ. Until now, Milosivic was the only one I could see bein judged by that court. So that ICJ is not reliable for the time being, may be in future, who knows!!!!
.........“My comments said “FALKLAND ISLAND DEPENDENCIES”, they're 100% correct. You really are dumb aren't you.
Falklands Dispute, so when did Argentina drop its foolish claim to the Falkland Island dependencies?
Don't see anyone running, except you round in circles.”.........
- Justin, are you wrong or you are a liar?!?!?!
Are you that arrogant that cannot admit it. I have shown you the proof!!!!!! It is in front of you. ADMIT IT!!!!!!!!!! for god sake!!!!!!!!!!!!!
........“Ah Jorge! perhaps you refuse to debate with me because you are incapable off, because my arguements and your replies make you like a complete wankshaft huh hun?”........
Mar 26th, 2010 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I cannot debate with someone who refuse to recognize there is a problem nor with someone like you that makes nonsense comments.
You also makes comments like, I don't know, as if you were stoned! lol
I think you are some kind of Bob Marley.
...........“This is the great difference between you and me, I believe in human rights and progression, you beleive in turning the clock back to satisfy the collective national ego.”.........
- No. I just want my country rights to be respected. The difference between you and me is that you defend something “undefendable”?
You strongly believe that the UK existence is some kind of blessing for this world....lol..... and I sincerely cannot debate with someone who “think” that way. Sorry Bob!!!!!
What proof exactly?
Mar 26th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which statement is incorrect?
Why is your head rammed up your arse?
HOYTRED, in aswer to what you said about my comment of creating a protectorate between arg and the u.k., i confirm one more time that with an ignorant and injudicious like you, it's imposible to have a debate, you can keep on dreaming waiting for us to drop in our claim, dreaming is free, and there is nothing wrong with that, like it or not, the solution must benefit both sides, my gov should negotiate with the f.i.g face to face, and find a fair solution for both, if is it dificult to accept and understand for you, sorry that's your problem, if you love your status quo, then you will keep on having for the next 300 years, but our claim is going to be for good, so, with that closed mind that you have, getting your independence, is just one more of your dreams.
Mar 26th, 2010 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously this is the last time i waste my time with some one like you, like i told 2 weeks ago, it does not worth to debate about anything with some one who thinks like you.
JUSTIN, i respect your posture about the answer that you gave me yeaterday, when i told you about the idea of creating a protectorate, but this is evident that not even you understand that the solution must benefit both sides, anyway everyopinion are respectable, but the solution is in our hands, if we dont think together, then, we will remain with this problematic for the next 300 years.
Mar 26th, 2010 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RHAURIE, i have been reading one of your comments, you said that the our gov must negotiate with f.i.g face to face, let me tell you that i agree totally with you, finally i found some one rational, the solution to the conflict must benefit both sides, this is some thing that most islanders dont want to understand, where are you from?.
Mar 26th, 2010 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, i want to tell you that i have been reading a note in an argentine magazine called newsweek, there is note to an argentine profesor called Esteban Cichello Hubner, he works at the oxford university, and he asked hes piupirls to propose a solution to the malvinas-falklands conflict, most them proposed to create a protectorate between arg and the u.k., but the islands would keep on being as autonomous as now, arg an the u.k. only would give then defence, and all the rest of the policys would keep on being in the hands of the islanders, beside in the islands would flame the three flags, and the islanders would have an argentine passport too, i think it's a fair solution, because in this way it would be respected the wish of the islanders of remaining as british citizens, and on the other hand, we can have presence in the islands, what's your opinion?.
Try this. Most of the (apparently) Argentine posters make inaccurate, illogical or ludicrous assertions. Argentina has no claim to the Falkland Islands except in its (probably narcotic-induced) delusions.
Mar 27th, 2010 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you Argentines, or your pals, want to push it, try a little research. Like how many wars the UK has fought and won.
If you really want to push it, I hope you enjoy cruise missiles!
Don't make any mistakes, whatever you think of the British Government, the British people will demand the defence of the Falkland Islands.
This may seem militaristic but it should tell Argentina (and Venezuela) something important. The United Kingdom will not be cowed.
“- When Presidents like George Bush and Tony Blair are taken to court for crimes against humanity I will believe in the imparciality of ICJ. Until now, Milosivic was the only one I could see bein judged by that court. So that ICJ is not reliable for the time being, may be in future, who knows!!!!”
Mar 27th, 2010 - 05:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, Milosevic was being tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, an ad hoc court set up specifically for crimes commited during Yugoslavian conflict. It has nothing to do with the ICJ, even though both are based in The Hague.
19. Rhaurie, do I detect a small dig in the ribs from you? Immigrant from.....is wrong.
Mar 27th, 2010 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0On behalf of the people of the Republic of Argentina, I would like to appologise for the rantings of our compatriota Jorge. He lives in Comodoro which is far away enough from the rest of civilization, and is one of several who unfortunately, managed to slip the net during the years of the junta militar. We all lament that his name doesnt appear on the memorial list of “los desaparecidos”.
Globetrotter. El jovencito Jorgelito was born only in 1982, so he would not have had the opportunity to appear on any memorial list.
Mar 27th, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0He is evidence, however, that the Argentine “education” system is as robust and impartial as ever...
Axel - the only 'fair' outcome is that the islanders are allowed to decide their own future ..... and neither Britain nor Argentina should be a part of that ...... any solution that involves Argentina is a recognition of their spurious claims, and another 300 years won't be long enough for that!
Mar 27th, 2010 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/cif-green/2010/mar/24/india-bangladesh-sea-levels
Mar 27th, 2010 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islanders read this note, maybe global warming will make them swim to the mainland.
Island claimed by India and Bangladesh sinks below waves
future
Island claimed by Argentine and UK sinks below waves.
everything can change.
bye
.......“What proof exactly?
Mar 27th, 2010 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which statement is incorrect?”..........
This one..............“Since the formation of the UN, the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. On each occasion it was Argentina that refused.”........
- Why do you make me repeat it?!?!?!?!?!
I think you said the same in other article, I haven't found in my archives yet!
.........“Why is your head rammed up your arse?”.......
- Are you angry Justin?!?!?! That's too bad!. Life is short, enjoy it!
44 agent0060 (#) said..............“Don't make any mistakes, whatever you think of the British Government, the British people will demand the defence of the Falkland Islands.”............
mmmmmmmm I don't think so. I'v read british people opinions and only nazionalists and hooligans think that way, others just think that british should negotiate because it is ridiculous to be expending in militar defence in Malvinas with money of british tax's payers when there is too much unemployment there.
I remember one saying “”We are struggling here and the government spend money 13000 km away?!?!?!“”.
...........“Jorge, Milosevic was being tried at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, an ad hoc court set up specifically for crimes commited during Yugoslavian conflict. It has nothing to do with the ICJ, even though both are based in The Hague.”.........
- Thanks for the correction, but did you get my idea????
..........“On behalf of the people of the Republic of Argentina, I would like to appologise for the rantings of our compatriota Jorge. He lives in Comodoro which is far away enough from the rest of civilization, and is one of several who unfortunately, managed to slip the net during the years of the junta militar. We all lament that his name doesnt appear on the memorial list of “los desaparecidos”.”............
Mar 27th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Look stupid, I'm 27 years old and I have nothing to do with the dictatorship, you idiot!
Ah! You discriminate those who live far away of what you call “civilization”.
You must be a reletive of Julio Roca! He thought the same of Mapuches.
You must be a “porteñito” ó “rosarino” ignorante que se acuerdan de la patagonia solo cuando hay conflictos de soberanía. Sos un asqueroso de mier... HDP y la rec... de tu hermana.
Que hablás de los desaparecidos sin vergüenza HDP. Que carajo tenés que ver vos con esa gente! Si no estás en esa lista es por que no tuviste los huevos suficientes y venís a hablar ahora HDP.
........“Globetrotter. El jovencito Jorgelito was born only in 1982, so he would not have had the opportunity to appear on any memorial list.
He is evidence, however, that the Argentine “education” system is as robust and impartial as ever...”......
- Archibald (funny name)!!!!!!! For your information, Nootka Sound Convention, 1771 agrement between UK-Spain and 1825 british recognition of Argentina are not taught in schools. You should know about that, clown. 99% of what I know about Malvinas was learnt outside school.
- No te hagás el dolobu, ya te voy a agarrar jejeje, algo me dice que no estás muy lejos??!!??!!??!!??!!
......“Islanders read this note, maybe global warming will make them swim to the mainland.
Mar 27th, 2010 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Island claimed by India and Bangladesh sinks below waves
future
Island claimed by Argentine and UK sinks below waves.
everything can change.”.......
- That's not a bad idea. If we can't excercise our rights there, then.......................
That article says..........“What these two countries could not achieve from years of talking has been resolved by global warming”........
Mar 27th, 2010 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- So be it!
Jorgelito, if you have learned 99% of what you know about the Falklands out of school, then why do you keep parroting the official Argentine government myths?
Mar 27th, 2010 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comodoro, we lived there for a bit when I was little, in a block of flats opposite the old train station. A windy, dusty and provincial hole of a place. We were pleased to go. Rio Gallegos was much better!
Oh, and if the Falklands sink below the waves they'll take most of Bs As province with them... I bet you won't be so keen on that afterall.
Jorge! - “..... I don't think so. I'v read british people opinions and only nazionalists and hooligans think that way, ...”
Mar 28th, 2010 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now there's a coincidence.
Jorge! - “ ....others just think that british should negotiate because it is ridiculous to be expending in militar defence in Malvinas with money of british tax's payers when there is too much unemployment there.... ”
It's always good to have a mix of views but I think you underestimate British sentiment. No British Government that wishes to remain in power would fail to defend the islands. The present Government tried to give up some sovereignty over Gibralter and when found out had to reverse their position very quickly in the face of massive opposition by the public. Non of the parties will be daft enough to try that with the Falklands. In any case, if the islanders strike it rich with oil they've already stated that they'll reimburse the UK's military costs.
47. J:A:Roberts, Thanks for enlightening me...In that case, he will appear on the next list:))
Mar 28th, 2010 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 051. Jorge querido, I am not discriminating you for having left civilization, I am pleased to see that youve gone because, it hasnt entered your wasps nest head that you do not represent the thoughts of your compatriotas.
Mar 28th, 2010 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Before you jump head first into a cess pit, would you like to take a holiday at my apartment in puerto madryn? and no, I am neither porteño ni de rosario...sigue adivinar.
“Since the formation of the UN, the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. On each occasion it was Argentina that refused.”
Mar 28th, 2010 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What is inaccurate? And no I'm not angry in the slightest, faintly amused by your determination to make an ass of yourself. Has Argentina dropped its claims to the Falkland Island Dependencies?
.........“Jorgelito, if you have learned 99% of what you know about the Falklands out of school, then why do you keep parroting the official Argentine government myths?”..........
Mar 29th, 2010 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0- They are not myths! Your contrived self-determination is a myth!
.........“Comodoro, we lived there for a bit when I was little, in a block of flats opposite the old train station. A windy, dusty and provincial hole of a place.”.......
- I should have known and kick your ass out of here!
.....“We were pleased to go. Rio Gallegos was much better!”.........
- It was, I was born there while Mirages took off, but Comodoro is the most important city in Patagonia and it has grown too much in the last 6 years due to our true oil industry which is 103 years old.
......“Oh, and if the Falklands sink below the waves they'll take most of Bs As province with them... I bet you won't be so keen on that afterall.”........
- How do you know that??? Are you some kind of expert????
........“It's always good to have a mix of views but I think you underestimate British sentiment.”.......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 04:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0- I think sentiments in your country as in many others is changing.
.........“No British Government that wishes to remain in power would fail to defend the islands.”........
- So far.
.....“Non of the parties will be daft enough to try that with the Falklands.”.......
- So far.
Your country is losing power in the international sphere and as I said before, people's sentiment changes with the years.
.....”In that case, he will appear on the next list:))“........
- En qué lista tarado?
.....”Jorge querido, I am not discriminating you for having left civilization, I am pleased to see that youve gone because, it hasnt entered your wasps nest head that you do not represent the thoughts of your compatriotas.“.......
- Pero por qué no te hacés lavar el orto boludazo!!!!!!
I only represent my thought. Do you represent the thoughts of the rest???
......”Before you jump head first into a cess pit, would you like to take a holiday at my apartment in puerto madryn? and no, I am neither porteño ni de rosario...sigue adivinar.“.........
- No thanks!. I don't need to take a holiday in the flat of ”un mugriento idiológico” as you!!!!!
Cuándo te lo compraste? En los 70's como soldado del ERP, Montoneros, etc?
Estabas en la línea de batalla vos ó tu sector era la panfletería universitaria???
Digo, como te llenás la boca hablando de los desaparecidos!
Muchos como vos hoy hablan, hablan y hablan pero cuando les explota un petardo al lado salen cagando.
Por último, dejá de escribir sobre mi y dedicate a opinar sobre el artículo que este no es un debate sobre la dictadura argentina hecho por cagones tira panfletos!
............““Since the formation of the UN, the UK has offered on three separate occasions to take the Falklands dispute to the ICJ. On each occasion it was Argentina that refused.”
Mar 29th, 2010 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is inaccurate? ”..............
- The offer was about Malvinas dependencies, not Malvinas islands.
Are you happy now????
.........“And no I'm not angry in the slightest, faintly amused by your determination to make an ass of yourself.”........
- mmmmm I think you will insult me any time soon. Then you are gonna say I dished it out, aren't you!
All the people who don't agree with your Pascoe and Pepper's fantasy are making an ass of themselves????
Pascoe and Pepper use (and reference) original material and documents, contemporaneous records and rational argument to put forward the case disproving the Argentine version of history.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentine version is full of holes and biased interpretations. Academically it falls short.
Interesting to note that in its 2004 submission to the Decolonization Committee, the Argentine Government placed great emphasis on Vernett's actions but by the presentation in London in 2007, they made no mention of Vernett at all prefering to rely on Jewett's claim.
Maybe they are starting to see the holes ??
Jorge! - “ ... All the people who don't agree with your Pascoe and Pepper's fantasy are making an ass of themselves???? ...”
Mar 29th, 2010 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Couldn't agree more Jorge !
Jorgelitonto,
Mar 29th, 2010 - 07:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is not contrived or a myth. It is enshrined in several UN resolutions which apply directly to the Falkland Islands.
C0modoro might be important, but it's still a dusty and windy hole of a place. I would not wish it on anyone. Even the Afrikaaners who chanced upon that oil 103 years ago.
I was also where “the Mirages were taking off in 1982”, about the only thing Argentina had going for it in the war. Meanwhile we were blacking out our windows and driving around at night with headlamps taped up, like they did in the Second World War. Obviously the word “infrared” had not filtered through to Argentina yet. We were also being fed some fanciful claims by Argentine radio and TV. Thankfully we could get the BBC and find out what was really going on.
Perhaps you should have a look at the elevations above sea level across Prov de Bs As and then you might not make such stupid comments.
........”Pascoe and Pepper use (and reference) original material and documents, contemporaneous records and rational argument to put forward the case disproving the Argentine version of history.“.......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Ufffffff! They, like you, forget to mention a lot of things and resort to Ad-hominen saying the historians who made the most exaustive rersearch on the matter were just anti-english or that the pope who divide the world between Spain and Portugal was corrupted. They also omit that, corrupted or not, the pope was the last instance in a dispute at the time.
Their research is full of holes.
So, Pascoe and Pepper disprove argentine version of history??? My ass!!!!!!
.....”The Argentine version is full of holes and biased interpretations. Academically it falls short.“......
- So do Pascoe and Peppers.
........”Interesting to note that in its 2004 submission to the Decolonization Committee, the Argentine Government placed great emphasis on Vernett's actions but by the presentation in London in 2007, they made no mention of Vernett at all prefering to rely on Jewett's claim.”......
- Can you disprove the argentine arguments??? Of course NOT!!!!!
Those stupids of Pascue and Peppers and the most famous anti-argentines and pro-falklands cause in MercoPress and Falklands-Malvinas-forum Justin Kuntz and Ernest Spencer could have gone to the presentation in London to disprove the argentine arguments, but they didn't appear.
Why didn't you appear there???
........“Jorgelitonto,
Mar 29th, 2010 - 09:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is not contrived or a myth. It is enshrined in several UN resolutions which apply directly to the Falkland Islands.”........
- Does not apply to the islanders, so it's a myth.
......“C0modoro might be important, but it's still a dusty and windy hole of a place. I would not wish it on anyone. Even the Afrikaaners who chanced upon that oil 103 years ago. ”.........
- It is windy (like in Malvinas) and we always deal with it. It is not a punishment for us, we are receiving much internal inmigration and the wind will be the next business since there are many private investors from Germany and Japan interested in building and placing wind engines here to exploit wind which by the way is one of the best winds of the world.
......“Perhaps you should have a look at the elevations above sea level across Prov de Bs As and then you might not make such stupid comments.”.......
- You cannot predict nature, you don't know what could nature do with Malvinas, earthquakes, extreme cold weather, tsunamis or whatever, the future of B.A. is not linked to Malvinas. Don't make retard comments!!!!!
Jorgelitonto, there is absolutely nothing in any UN resolutions which excludes the Falkland Islands. Even the UN resolutions which specifically mention the Falkland islands reference their right to self determination. Obviously you have never read any of those resolutions and prefer to believe Argentine government propaganda.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't predict nature boludito Jorgito. Your friend quetzald predicted it and you agreed with him! If the Falklands disappear because of a rise in sea levels due to global warming, then so will half of Prov de Bs As (and many other parts of Argentina). Only a halfwit would not figure that out. Hilarious.
I didn't visit the Argentine presentation in London because it was invite only and I wasn't invited. The guest list did let a former soldier through who tore it to pieces. Let me know the next time and I will perhaps visit.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0And again Jorge, I did clarify Falkland Island Dependencies but you can carry on making an ass of yourself if you insist.
........”Pascoe and Pepper use (and reference) original material and documents, contemporaneous records and rational argument to put forward the case disproving the Argentine version of history.“.......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - Your comment below in reply to the above:
- Ufffffff! They, like you, forget to mention a lot of things and resort to Ad-hominen saying the historians who made the most exaustive rersearch on the matter were just anti-english or that the pope who divide the world between Spain and Portugal was corrupted. They also omit that, corrupted or not, the pope was the last instance in a dispute at the time.
The Pope had ZERO authority of England at the time. England was and is a protestant country and did not nor does it recognise the Popes authority over any matter what so ever. Also neither England or France accepted the Papel Bull or the Treaty of Tordesillas. England can't be held to treaties it did not recognise - you yourself have set that precedent by your statements that Argenitna can't be held to Nootka because it didn't sign that particular treaty.
Anyway under the treaty of Tordesillas South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands fall under the Portuguese sphere of influence, yet Argentina lays claim to them to. These were never under Spanish sovereignty, and have always been under British sovereignty since there discovery, so can you please explain why Argentina now lays claim to them?
Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement and Friendship (the Arana-Southern Treaty) with
Mar 29th, 2010 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain in November 1849 and ratified it on 15 May 1850. Both s ides regarded it as a peace treaty that
settled all disputes with Britain and hence confirmed Britain’s possession of the Falklands.
Jorge! -
Mar 29th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Can you disprove the argentine arguments??? Of course NOT!!!!!” WRONG jorge - the real history disproves Argentina's claim!
“Does not apply to the islanders, so it's a myth”
WRONG little jorge - applicable to all
I'll give you one thing Jorge!, you are good at being wrong :-)
But hey ... there's no problem 'cos the islands are British :-))
........“Jorgelitonto, there is absolutely nothing in any UN resolutions which excludes the Falkland Islands. Even the UN resolutions which specifically mention the Falkland islands reference their right to self determination. Obviously you have never read any of those resolutions and prefer to believe Argentine government propaganda.”.....
Mar 29th, 2010 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I've read all about that. It does not apply to implanted people. The propaganda is yours ginorant boy!
UN says this is a special case of COLONY! End of story.
........”I didn't predict nature boludito Jorgito. Your friend quetzald predicted it and you agreed with him! If the Falklands disappear because of a rise in sea levels due to global warming, then so will half of Prov de Bs As (and many other parts of Argentina). Only a halfwit would not figure that out. Hilarious.“........
- Oh I see you're begining with the insults. I said that wasn't a bad idea, just that! An earthquake could make a mess in Malvinas. A tsunami also could make a mess and it doesn't necesarily means B.A. would go under with Malvinas.
Te trataban mal en la escuela que tenés tanto resentimiento con la Argentina???
.......”I didn't visit the Argentine presentation in London because it was invite only and I wasn't invited. The guest list did let a former soldier through who tore it to pieces. Let me know the next time and I will perhaps visit.”..........
- uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!! I would like to see that! You trying to rebute Rudolf Dozer's arguments, priceless!
.........“Anyway under the treaty of Tordesillas South Georgia and The South Sandwich Islands fall under the Portuguese sphere of influence, yet Argentina lays claim to them to. These were never under Spanish sovereignty, and have always been under British sovereignty since there discovery, so can you please explain why Argentina now lays claim to them?”......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Sincerely, I'm focusing in Malvinas claim. My honest answer, I didn't study South Georga and Sandwich islands cases. I let that to you who are obssesed with our history.
........”Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement and Friendship (the Arana-Southern Treaty) with
Britain in November 1849 and ratified it on 15 May 1850. Both s ides regarded it as a peace treaty that
settled all disputes with Britain and hence confirmed Britain’s possession of the Falklands.”........
- It settled dispute over Río de La Plata. Nothing to do with Malvinas.
comment 71, not worth answering.
........”Argentina signed the Convention of Settlement and Friendship (the Arana-Southern Treaty) with
Mar 29th, 2010 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain in November 1849 and ratified it on 15 May 1850. Both s ides regarded it as a peace treaty that
settled all disputes with Britain and hence confirmed Britain’s possession of the Falklands.”........
- It settled dispute over Río de La Plata. Nothing to do with Malvinas.
Where in the treaty is that stated?
You stated in previous article that when Britain recognised Argentinian independence we omitted to mention the dispute to your sovereignty of the Falklands which you had laid claim to therefore we by default recognised Argentine sovereignty.
By omitting to mention sovereignty of the Falklands in the above mentioned treaty which was signed when Britain was in posession of the Falklands then using your own argument Argentina by default and ommission recognised British sovereignty of the Falklands in May 1850.
Jorge
Mar 29th, 2010 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Below is from the convention of Settlement:
Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Excellency the Governor and Captain General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both governments, and the government of Her Britannic Majesty having declared that it has no separate or interested object in view, nor any other desire than to see securely established the peace and independence of the States of the River Plate as recognized by treaty, have named to that effect as their Plenipotentiaries, viz
Note the “putting an end to the existing differences”. As the sovereignty of the Falklands was in dispute then surely it falls under the category of “existing differences”
Jprge! “ ... uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu!!!!! I would like to see that! You trying to rebute Rudolf Dozer's arguments, priceless ....”
Mar 29th, 2010 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shouldn't be that hard, after all Pascoe and Pepper seem to have managed to rebut Dozier's arguments easily enough .......... no problem
:-)
OK Jorgelito.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where exactly does the UN deny self determination to “implanted” peoples? Perhaps you can provide a link to the relevant UN resolution.
And whilst you're at it, perhaps a link to a UN resolution which says the Falklands are somehow different to other non self governing territories. Since you have read all about it, and are such an expert, this should be relatively easy for you.
That's two links Jorge. I'm not asking for a lot.
60. Jorge, you fail to understand and recognise irony.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is not contrived or a myth. It is enshrined in several UN resolutions which apply directly to the Falkland Islands.”........
Mar 29th, 2010 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Does not apply to the islanders, so it's a myth.
52. Furthermore, the subsequent development of international law in
regard to non-self-governing territories, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations, made the principle of self-determination applicable to all of them.
LEGAL CONSEQUENCES FOR STATES OF THE CONTINUED PRESENCE OF SOUTH AFRICA IN NAMIBIA (SOUTH WEST AFRICA) NOTWITHSTANDING SECURITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION 276 (1970)
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index.php?p1=3&p2=4&k=a7&case=53&code=nam&p3=4
73 Globetrotter:
Mar 29th, 2010 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Indeed a dig at the ribs by which our mutual idiot Jorge always falls short! double standards I have never liked, screech at the evil one but keep your evil deeds under wraps so they say.
Axel Arg: Indeed I like your encouraging words, a beacon of light in the current flame war, I made a similar proposal many months back that we ambush both Christan Kirchener and Jorge Tainia and lock them in a room with representatives from the Falklands islands and not them let them out to an agreement of dialogue takes place.
However my opinion has been such for a long time only the people can truly and rightfuly decide whats best for them, no fancy agreements and such, if Argentina beleives truly in gaining the islands, they should be wooing the Islanders not battering them over the head like Jorge suggests!
A combination of my mainland bloodlines tried that in Eire it didn't particularly work!
.....“- It settled dispute over Río de La Plata. Nothing to do with Malvinas.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where in the treaty is that stated?”........
- Why do you think that treaty was signed???
It was signed after your B.A.'s port blockade between 1845 and 1849 with french help. As you can see, our history is full of agressions from UK.
You wanted to control River of Plate by encouraging the independence of Uruguay which was and wanted to remain an argentine province at the time. This is all mixed with the conflict with Brazil for the region which Uruguay occupys right now.
........“By omitting to mention sovereignty of the Falklands in the above mentioned treaty which was signed when Britain was in posession of the Falklands then using your own argument Argentina by default and ommission recognised British sovereignty of the Falklands in May 1850.”.......
- The mention of sovereignty of Malvinas wasn't needed in 1850 since you recognized argentine rights in 1825. End of story!
.......“Note the “putting an end to the existing differences”. As the sovereignty of the Falklands was in dispute then surely it falls under the category of “existing differences””.....
- In the context of what was happening in 1845-1849.
......”Shouldn't be that hard, after all Pascoe and Pepper seem to have managed to rebut Dozier's arguments easily enough ......... no problem
:-)“.......
- LOL. they didn't do that. They just think they did!!!!!!
.....”Where exactly does the UN deny self determination to “implanted” peoples? Perhaps you can provide a link to the relevant UN resolution.“.....
- It says this is a special case of colonial situation. It calls UK and Argentina to negotiate. If UN were not denying ”self-determination“, it would just reject argentine claim. If UN were not denying ”self-determination“, it would put an end to this dispute with the fact that islanders want to remain as british subjects.
So, my little, arrogant and ignorant friend, UN denies ”self-determination” to this people.
........“That's two links Jorge. I'm not asking for a lot.”........
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- No links needed wich BTW were posted here many times. I'm up to my ears of that.
.....“60. Jorge, you fail to understand and recognise irony.”......
- Maybe.
........“Indeed a dig at the ribs by which our mutual idiot Jorge always falls short! double standards I have never liked, screech at the evil one but keep your evil deeds under wraps so they say.”.......
- You are the stupid idiot.
“No links needed wich BTW were posted here many times. I'm up to my ears of that.”
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can't post them because they don't exist Jorgebobo...
.....“You can't post them because they don't exist Jorgebobo...”......
Mar 30th, 2010 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Archibald (como te castigaron con ese nombre), why do you insist on insulting me???
Did you read what I wrote? Is true, isn't it? seriously Archibald, what I said is true. So, no links needed. They are not applying “self-determination” to islanders, then, they are denying it to them.
Jorge! - “ ... The mention of sovereignty of Malvinas wasn't needed in 1850 since you recognized argentine rights in 1825. End of story! ”
Mar 31st, 2010 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Utter rubbish. Britain recognised Argentina's existence, it did not recognise Argentina's spurious claim to the Falkland Islands.
Joreg! - “ .. LOL. they didn't do that. They just think they did!!!!!! ...”
But they DID jorge, which is probably why no counter arguments have been received from Argentina.
Jorge! - “ ... UN denies ”self-determination” to this people. ...”
On the contary Jorgy boy, the whole purpose of the Decolonization Committee is to get the Falkland Islands independent. They have no remit to take a colony from one coloniser and give it to another coloniser.
Jorge! “ ... Did you read what I wrote? Is true, isn't it? ...”
No jorgy, it's crap like eveything else you come up with.
But hey, no problem :-)
Who is not “applying” self-determination to the Falkland Islands Jorge? Who? The only country I know of is Argentina, and that is in contravention of international law...
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Noone is applying that engendro to islanders gíl de cuarta! Ustedes son los únicos contrarios a la ley internacional manga de sinvergüenzas mal paridos!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jigaboo please, why are you allowed self determination and the Islanders aren't? If they were Argentininian you would be demanding their self determination as fanatically as you deny theirs currently!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Jorgebobo, you are wrong again. There is no UN Resolution stripping the Falkland Islanders of the right to self determination. In fact there are many which confirm that right.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 05:11 pm - 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!