MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Oil in Falklands but not in commercial volumes, reports The Times
The first well drilled off the Falkland Islands in 12 years has struck oil — but not enough for a commercial well, according to a report from the Sunday edition of The Times. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesBritons must develop their Geology Knowledges !
Mar 28th, 2010 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0there are some oil reserves around Malvinas.. but :
every Chile earthquake pull them into the buttom of Pampa
not push out to the Ocean !
what a sexy Natural Operation !!
authority gdr.
Disappointing, ... but 4 more wells yet to go !
Mar 28th, 2010 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0This may at first appear to be bad news and the awful journalism will certainly affect the SP (unless the shares are suspended due to this pre RNS media report). From what I have been reading then we are likley to see an RNS at 7am (BST) which will clarify the situation. What this report indicates is that this area contains more than sand and from my understanding this drill was not designed to determine the commercial viability of the Liz (or Liz & Beth prospect); although I an no expert in oil drilling and am not preteding to be (I am a health economist by trade).
Mar 28th, 2010 - 07:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a total of 18 months of drilling to continue, with RKH and FOGL the next companies to drill. This gap will give DES the chance to study the data to decide how to progress with drilling. My shares are staying in my account and I will either lose a litte (I am comfortable which what I stand to lose) or gain a lot. The fact that this was considered a technically successful drill means that there is a working hydrocarbon system that supports the seismic data.
This is exploration, and valuable data will have been gathered. The SP will be up and down over the next year or so. I am wating until the end game.
Dr Beef
Good news! The speculation around it was enourmous. Many people will lose their money and that's defenitely good news!
Mar 29th, 2010 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0How you dare to do that without our authorization!!!!
I hope you lose much more money.
Jorge. You are truly thick arn't you. You only lose money if you sell at a loss and this is only the first drill. There are a number of other licences to explore so there is plenty of time to see what the islands have to offer.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 06:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0The FIG authorized the drilling so what other permission is required? If you think that Argentina needs to give permission then take the matter to the ICJ in The Hauge. Your government have refused to do this so they are admitting they have no legal foot to stand on. Another RNS due this week and then another drill with RKH.
There is nothing Atgentina can do about it!
.......“Jorge. You are truly thick arn't you. You only lose money if you sell at a loss and this is only the first drill. There are a number of other licences to explore so there is plenty of time to see what the islands have to offer.”......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0- I hope you fail and lose more money.
..........“The FIG authorized the drilling so what other permission is required? If you think that Argentina needs to give permission then take the matter to the ICJ in The Hauge. Your government have refused to do this so they are admitting they have no legal foot to stand on. Another RNS due this week and then another drill with RKH.”........
- Nope. Those are our islands, british there are just squatters.
......“There is nothing Atgentina can do about it!”........
- mmmmmmmm. Do not say good morning before daybreak!
Jorge
Mar 29th, 2010 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0FYI - I bought these shares at such a low price that I am still in profit and the money I would lose if it failed outright is fine by me. I have more where that came from and get about a 20% sucess rate on oil exploration alone (overall this makes considerably more than what I lose).
Unlike you I am not a bitter person and wish you and your family prosperity.
Your comments tend not to provide any concrete information about what you can actually do claim the islands. The reality is, that there is nothing you can do. Please indicate why your leadership are not taking this matter to the ICJ? You have consistently dodged this question. If you and your leadership are so sure of Argentine sovereignty then the ICJ is the arena that you need to go to.
Everyhting Argentina has done (complining to your dictator neighbours and winging at the UN) has achieved nothing. You know there is nothing you can do and if you disagree then indicate exactly what you intend to do and the effect this is likely to have.
Dr Beef
Still no problem then Jorge ! :-)
Mar 29th, 2010 - 12:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0......“Unlike you I am not a bitter person and wish you and your family prosperity.”......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Hey, I hope you lose money only regarding Malvinas. I wish you the best apart from that!
.......“Your comments tend not to provide any concrete information about what you can actually do claim the islands. The reality is, that there is nothing you can do. Please indicate why your leadership are not taking this matter to the ICJ?”.........
- My view is that ICJ is not reliable. I said, the day they take to court George Bush and Tony Blair for crimes against humanity, then I'll believe in their impartiality.
.........”Everyhting Argentina has done (complining to your dictator neighbours and winging at the UN) has achieved nothing. You know there is nothing you can do and if you disagree then indicate exactly what you intend to do and the effect this is likely to have.”........
- We are doing our best to make squatters' life unlivable. You don't live around here, so you can't know.
Dr Lamb
The Falkland Islands do not have to consult with Argentina on any matter, they are a self-governing country and do not need to discuss anything with an impoverished, declining and corrupt country. Argentina could have gained so much from the Hydrocarbons industry in the Falklands, but decided to continue embarrassing themselves with immature behaviour. Argentina never controlled the Falklands, therefore they have never owned the islands. Take your claim to the UN as much as possible, they will never support you, there are Human Rights involved, and the UN will never agree to ignore the Falklanders Human Rights. The fact that the Falkland Islanders descendents did not murder, persecute and seize control of land from its native popluation means that the islanders are not squatters, but the owners of the land, and that is what we do, we have decided to remain British. The Argentines are the squatters, you need to give the land back to the natives who have been their for much longer than you and your Spanish/Italian descendents.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge, one quick question...can you actually see your hypocracy? No doubt you will call me a squatter or a pirate, or something very unoriginal and completely ignore all facts and the question. But the more you act this aggressively to people here on MercoPress the more you are covering up the weakness in your beliefs. If you believe in something you would offer up facts to prove your beliefs, but you just insult. Proving just how insecure you feel about your beliefs on the Falklands, just like your government. Lots and lots of rhetoric but no action. Long live Argentines ineffectiveness and deludedness!
Australian newspapers - “THE first well in a controversial oil hunt offshore from the Falkland Islands has given BHP Billiton early encouragement for its own drilling program in the region. But the drilling has infuriated Argentina.
Mar 29th, 2010 - 02:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0London-based Desire Petroleum has reported that drilling of the Liz permit may have encountered oil, and gas at deeper levels. While the reservoir quality was said to be poor, confirmation of of the presence of hydrocarbons upgrades the prospectivity of the region and BHP's acreage.
The drilling rig used by Desire, the Ocean Guardian, is due to drill an exploration well off the Falklands later this year for BHP. ”
Seems that BHP is not being discouraged....... regardless of Argentine threats !
of course, the conspiracy theorists will want to point out that this may just be a ploy to put off the Argies ....... maybe there's something in that :-)
Mar 29th, 2010 - 02:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“My view is that ICJ is not reliable. I said, the day they take to court George Bush and Tony Blair for crimes against humanity, then I'll believe in their impartiality”
Mar 29th, 2010 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More intelligent input by Jorge. It obviously has not dawned on him yet that only states are allowed to appear before the ICJ and individuals cannot. Moreover, tot up the number of cases which have gone the UKs way vs the number the UK has lost and see if there is any clear bias. I don't think so...
“Moreover, tot up the number of cases which have gone the UKs way vs the number the UK has lost and see if there is any clear bias. I don't think so...”
Mar 29th, 2010 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge would never do something that proves he is wrong, so here goes:
1 v serbia no jurisdiction
2 v lybia lybia won
3 v Iceland uk won
4 v bulgaria withdrawn by uk
5 v chile chile no recognition of jurisdiction by chile
6 v argentina no recognition of jurisdiction by argentina
7 v italy can't adjudicate
8 v france uk won
9 v iran no jurisdiction
10 v greece greece won
11 v norway norway won
12 v albania 1st decidion uk won 2nd decision part uk part albania
........“Argentina never controlled the Falklands, therefore they have never owned the islands.”......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Simply untrue. You are brainwashed there.
........“The fact that the Falkland Islanders descendents did not murder, persecute and seize control of land from its native popluation means that the islanders are not squatters, but the owners of the land, and that is what we do, we have decided to remain British.”.........
- Your ancestors did. Your chose to remain british is irrelevant in the South Atlantic. Do it in your country, not here in Malvinas (Argentina).
.........“The Argentines are the squatters, you need to give the land back to the natives who have been their for much longer than you and your Spanish/Italian descendents.”......
- Who killed the onas in Tierra del Fuego??? Argentines or british???? Why don't you make a research before commenting?!?!?!!?
.........“Jorge, one quick question...can you actually see your hypocracy? No doubt you will call me a squatter or a pirate, or something very unoriginal and completely ignore all facts and the question.”.......
- You did guess!!!! Pirate!!! This is not about being original. You ignore the fact that your ancestors took over Malvinas by force expelling argentine authorities.
.........“But the more you act this aggressively to people here on MercoPress the more you are covering up the weakness in your beliefs.”......
- ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????
I'm not agressive at all. I'm a peaceful argentine guy who posts opinions about the british piracy against my country in 1833 and ever since.
.....“If you believe in something you would offer up facts to prove your beliefs, but you just insult.”......
- I presented facts a lot of times and I do not insult everyone, only those who insulted me first.
.......“More intelligent input by Jorge. It obviously has not dawned on him yet that only states are allowed to appear before the ICJ and individuals cannot. Moreover, tot up the number of cases which have gone the UKs way vs the number the UK has lost and see if there is any clear bias. I don't think so...”.......
Mar 29th, 2010 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Ignorant! this is not always about politics, there could be economic interests influencing ICJ. That is a black box.
Usual crap from Jorgie Boy ... hardly worth banging my head against his stubborn brick wall, but here goes -
Mar 30th, 2010 - 12:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has only ever managed to control the islands on 2 occassions and for a grand total of 4 months, i.e 1832 and 1982. In both cases Argentina were the invading force. In both cases they were sent packing with their taile between their legs.
Get over it. The only matter that is now important is what the islanders wish to do. Argentina has no case, no argument, no hope and no importance. Job done, no problem!
Jorgebobo
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0You made a statement. I rebutted your statement on two levels and the best answer you can come up with is:
“Ignorant! this is not always about politics, there could be economic interests influencing ICJ. That is a black box”
This economic angle is new, perhaps you “could” show us how economic interests “could” influence the ICJ, or are you just backing yourself into a corner and running out of ideas?
I think the reason Argentina won't go to the ICJ is that in several other cases, the ICJ has established precadents that fundamentally hole the Argentine “case” below the waterline.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0For example, Islands 100 miles off the coast are not adjacent.
Same results as last time, non-commercial..
Mar 30th, 2010 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Simply untrue. You are brainwashed there”
Mar 30th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0-if that were true then why is Uti possidetis juris and Uti possidetis the main Argentine arguements and not prescription? (length of possesion).
”Your ancestors did. Your chose to remain british is irrelevant in the South Atlantic. Do it in your country, not here in Malvinas (Argentina)“
-How is it irrelevant Jorge? should we kick dual citizenship holders out of Argentina then? The Falklands is their own country, 8 generations of Islanders have lived there now, thats longer than most of Argentina, who could probalbly trace their origins ooooh back to the 1930's?
”Who killed the onas in Tierra del Fuego??? Argentines or british???? Why don't you make a research before commenting?!?!?!!?“
-Yet you were quite happy to take over Tierra del Feugo after we did your dirty work for you? But thats not the point who killed the ones in Patagonia, BA the Chacos, the Pampas, in fact the rest of the country and you dare call the Islanders colonial Squatters?-Tell what was Argentina pre 1816? A Colony? How did that Colony come into being?
What was in Patagonia pre 1860? How did Patagonia suddenly become Argentine post 1860? where did all these whoite types suddenly come from to replace the natives? Oh dear Jorge, the hypocracy is building!
”You did guess!!!! Pirate!!! This is not about being original. You ignore the fact that your ancestors took over Malvinas by force expelling argentine authorities“
-I could say the same for you ignoring the inconvenient facts that your ancestors stole the geographical unit of Argentina from the natives, and that Argentina post 1833 gained roughly 80-90% of it's present day territory through conquest, fully 50 years after supposedly the islands were ”stoles from Ussses.
either Argentina actual beleives it's destruction of a unique society was Justified, yet the liberation of the Islands wasn't? Or they ignore the former deliberately!
How enlightened!
BUBBA, i have an answer for you, you have to search it in the articule that says argentine public opinion disenchant etc etc, it's from march 18th.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A . ROBERT, i outh you an aswer since a couple of days ago.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly you said that the malvinas were never an argentine territory, let me tell you that the existance of an small garrison with an argentine flag in 1833, that means that we had an argentine sovereign presence in the islands, so, what you say is false, you know perfectly that our garrison was removed by our great mother land but the truth is that we had presence on the islands, if dont like to recognize it, that's your problem.
About the patagonia, this is the fourth time i tell it to you, i know that the patagonic territory was populated mostly by the pueblos originarios, but the whole territory since buenos aires, untill up tierra del fuego, including the malvinas, was under the jurisdiction of the intendance of buenos aires, during the viceroalty times, it had four intendances, moxos, chiquitos, buenos aires, and the intendance of cordoba y tucuman.
When the u.p. decided to declare the independence with out the support from spain, all the territorys that were under the jurisdicton of the viceroalty, (i mean ours), started to be the patrimony all the people who lived in the u.p., the congress from tucuman didnt declare the independence only over those territorys that were populated by the settlers, some day the u.p. had to start to populate the huge territory of the nation, we were just a very small population.
I only agree with you when you say that the roca stole the lands belonging to the pueblos originarios, i recognize that it was a total abuse, but roca didn't invade another country, the argentine gov had right to stablish on the patagonia, because it was the patrimony of our people, it was the patrimony of the pueblos originarios too, but they were despoiled in an absolute unfair way.
About the support by the grupo rio, you say that not even that group would take seriously our claim, let me tell you that i dont think that they only got together to take just a nice picture.
J. A. ROBERT, i continue, some times your lack of objetivity shows that you are the one who is not serious.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand i have allways recognized that the islands are british, the islanders take 8 generations living there, and they have right to remain they selves as british citizens, it's not their fault what happened in 1833, but they must respect too our sovereign rights on the islands, that's why we must find a fair solution for both, they have to understand that we were despoiled by the most powerfull nation in the world, beside if you are going to argue now that we didnt claim during 91 years, i tell you one more time that for more than 100 years ,argentina was just a pseudo british colony, the british managed our economy during many years, we were not in conditions of claiming then nothing, beside it's not true what you say about that arg recognized the legitimity of british presence in the islands, that's absolutly false.
Argentina gave up any claim it might have had on the Falklands in the “Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship” which was signed on 24 November 1849 and ratified by both s ides in Buenos Aires on 15 May 1850. The Convention settled all existing differences between Argentina and Great Britain. There is no mention of the Falklands which Britain was in possession of in the text so Argentina didn't see it as a difference at the time, therefore they recognised Great Britains sovereignty of the island.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Firstly you said that the malvinas were never an argentine territory, let me tell you that the existance of an small garrison with an argentine flag in 1833, that means that we had an argentine sovereign presence in the islands”
Mar 30th, 2010 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, until recently there was a very large garrison with a British flag in Basra, that doesn't mean that the territory is British. The installation and presence of the garrison was immediately disputed by the UK. Its presence confers no rights whatseover.
Patagonia was not under the administration of the Viceroyalty of the Rio del La Plata, Patagonia was never under the control of the Spanish, it was under the control of the indigenous peoples who lived there. Claimed by Spain but neither under their administration or control. Argentina had no rights to the territory, it inherited nothing from Spain beyond what it could seize through armed force.
In 1848, the states formed from the disintegration of the Spanish Empire formulated the doctrine of Utis Possidetis Juris as a means of settling border disputes between themselves. This does not mean you inherited anything from Spain.
If Argentina was a pseudo British colony and did not pursue a claim for whatever reason, then that claim lapses. Full stop, do not pass go, do not collect £200. Further given that Argentina signed a treaty with the UK in which it agreed to settle existing disputes to establish normal relations with the UK means precisely that Argentina recognsised the legality of the British presence in the islands.
Argentina does not get to reap the benefits of trade with Britain for 100 years, then decide to reset the clock and to revive an old claim. That the point you just don't seem to get.
Perhaps we should wind the clock back a bit further and revive the claim to Port Desire, aka Puerto Deseado - we were there first and established control even before the Spanish. Get the point yet?
JUSTIN, i dont know what king of argentine history you studyed, the patagonia was under the jusridiction of the intendance from buenos aires, if you prefer to ignore it, that's your problem, you allready know what i think about it, because you rode the comment that i left for j. a. robert, i am not going to parrot all the time.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand your comparison is pathetic, the fact that you stablished first in puerto deseado, it does not give you any right to claim, because in some moment of your history, you recognized our sovereignty on that place, so, you lost your rights.
Beside what you say is false, argentina never recognized the legitimity of the british presence in the islands, anyway i will eliminate all the doubts that i have about the dispute, when i find an expert in international law, i hope i can do it this year, those people knows much more than you and i, if my country does not have more rights on the islands, i will recognize it, i allready told it to you more than once.
Beside if the british arguments are so strong, and ours are so false and weak, then why the u.n. does not recognize only the british arguments and rejects our claim because of the lack of veracity, if only britain has rights on the islands, and it soposes that we dont have any on the malvinas-falklands, then i dont understand why, the u.n. still calls to negotiate both countrys, if only the british arguments are true, there would not be anything to negotiate dont youn think?
........“Jorgebobo
Mar 30th, 2010 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You made a statement. I rebutted your statement on two levels and the best answer you can come up with is:
“Ignorant! this is not always about politics, there could be economic interests influencing ICJ. That is a black box””........
- Ok, first of all, stop insulting me!
Second of all, you didn't rebutte anything. Your statement does not invalid mine abot impartiality of ICJ.
......“This economic angle is new, perhaps you “could” show us how economic interests “could” influence the ICJ, or are you just backing yourself into a corner and running out of ideas?”.........
- You very well know how this world works!!!! Did you believe the bullshit of masive destruccion weapons of Sadam? Do you believe in the nuclear weapons of Iran? Are you too naïveté Archibald???
No, you are not naïveté. You are just ”@¬€~##~'¡076(/%/()#~€#!!!!!!!!!!!!
And we are not into a corner running out of ideas, we are the ones who want to talk about this in UN and you are the ones who refuse. Who is into the corner?
.........“I think the reason Argentina won't go to the ICJ is that in several other cases, the ICJ has established precadents that fundamentally hole the Argentine “case” below the waterline.”.........
- Yes, you THINK. What you think is not the truth!
.......“Yet you were quite happy to take over Tierra del Feugo after we did your dirty work for you?”........
- Ah nooooo! pero que reverendisimo hijo de una gran p**a!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Este si no la gana, la empata!
.........“Perhaps we should wind the clock back a bit further and revive the claim to Port Desire, aka Puerto Deseado - we were there first and established control even before the Spanish. Get the point yet?”........
- Archibald!, stop sharing your pots with Justin. Look what you did!. Poor Justin!
Jorge, it makes me laugh that you claim to never insult people of here. But you will reply to this and call me a pirate.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Argentina's whole claim to the Falkland Islands is based on a small settlement that established itself on an island for a handful of months after it was discovered, first stepped on, named and claimed by the British, and was later ejected by the British and almost 200 years later, after 8 generations of British descendents living on the islands, Argentina say that they have a legitimate claim over the islands... it seems the Argentines in the 1830s were the squatters...
I am sure Jorge will call me a pirate, and insult me in a number of ways, tell me I am brainwashed, blah blah jajajaja, but this is the basis for Argentina's claim??? Brilliant.
Axel,
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Buenos Aires did not control anything much further south of Azul until the 1870s. Roca said so himself! It was not sovereign Argentine territory until you took it by force! You had to take it somehow, because you did not inherit it from Spain! Bahia Blanca was initially built as a “fuerte”. How many countries have to build forts inside their own territory? And once again, I ask you, if Patagonia was Argentine then why was an act of conquest necessary? Please answer.
Jorgebobo
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, my statement does invalidate yours, I said you should look at the ICJ's record to see if it was biased. Dab did the hard work for me and put that record up. You can even check it yourself if you want to.
http://www.icj-cij.org/
That's 6 cases involving the UK which went to a ruling and how many of those did the UK win? Two and a half. I don't think that's a biased court!
You have given us no evidence to the contrary Jorgebobo, and until you do, your statement is well and truly invalidated.
And what's more Jorgebobo, the fact that you think Blair and Bush can be parties to a case at the ICJ just demonstrates your ignorance of the ICJ and international law in general...
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT, roca could say what ever he wanted, i dont care in absolut what a murderer hijo de mil puta like him can say, i only care about facts, the whole patagonia was under the jurisdiction of the viceroalty, see the maps, and reed about in how many jurisdictions was divided the viceroalty, when the u.p. declared the independence, some day they were going to ocupate the patagonia, our independence, wasen't declared only over those territorys that we populated by the settlers.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hand, i think that the right word is not conquest, it's ocupation, anyway ocupating the patagonia didn't mean that they had to steal the lands to the indigenous, and kill many of then.
a geological knowledge :
Mar 30th, 2010 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0there has not covered any rules of drillings oil inside of North Sea,
between Norway and England Republic.
likely that there might be undeserved oil reserves slidings !!
it could be the war reason !!
Axel
Mar 30th, 2010 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you recognized our sovereignty on that place, so, you lost your rights.”
1850 Convention of Settlement
Her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain and Ireland, and His Excellency the Governor and Captain General of the Province of Buenos Ayres, charged with the foreign relations of the Argentine Confederation, being desirous of putting an end to the existing differences, and of restoring perfect relations of friendship, in accordance with the wishes manifested by both governments
So did Argentina, do you get it yet? So on the one hand Argentina gets to changes its mind but Britain doesn't?
As regards the UN, the UN does not make any judgement about the strength of Argentina's argument, that is not its role. Asking for negotiations to settle a dispute is not taking sides or making any judgement whatsoever.
The only International Body that can do that is the ICJ.
And Axel, Argentina lost its case over the Beagle Channel dispute because Argentine maps showed the disputed islands as Chilean (until Argentina changed its mind). The same maps show the Falklands as British and until the 1930s, Argentine text books referred to Las Islas Falkland. So what do maps mean in Argentina, seems they can mean whatever you want.
Also Axel, the Conquest of the Desert is usually referred to as a genocide, because they did steal the land and slaughter the indigenous people.
JUSTIN, i would like to reed all the speech of the settlement convention, anyway you know in what moment i would recognize that my country lost it's rights on the islands, i was perfectly clear about it.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About what you call the conquest of the desert, i agree with you that it was a genocide, roca only had right to ocupate that territory, but in does not mean that he had to steal the lands of the indigenous, and kill many of then.
On the other hand i think that the right word is not conquest, it's ocupation, because some day an argentine authority had to ocupate those territorys, because the patagonia was our patrimony, it was belonging to the indigenous too, but they were despoiled in an absolut unfair way.
Gdr: “there has not covered any rules of drillings oil inside of North Sea,
Mar 30th, 2010 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0between Norway and England Republic”
-correct because there is no such thing as the England republic! However if you mean the United Kingdom, there are these things you see called “international maritime boundaries”.
However since nobody recognises Argentina's claims to the maritime boundaries she claims over the falklands, sorry love this piece of real estate is not for sale!
“Firstly you said that the malvinas were never an argentine territory, let me tell you that the existance of an small garrison with an argentine flag in 1833, that means that we had an argentine sovereign presence in the islands.”
Mar 30th, 2010 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, you need to learn more about acquisition of territory in international law. If Spain was sovereign, the question is whether sovereignty passed to Argentina after independence. To answer that question we need to look at how a state can acquire territory in international law.
A state can acquire territory:
A)By occupation. For occupation to be valid it
1) must be effective, the state, more than simply staking a claim, must secure control of it.
2) the land must be terra nullius. For land to be terra nullius it must have never had a sovereign or the sovereign must have relinquished it.
Since Argentina never had effective control of the Falklands and since Spain had not given up its claim to any of its territories in the Americas including the Falklands before 1836, this means Argentina didn't acquire the Falklands by occupation.
B)by cession. The inheritance argument. Argentina declared independence in 1816 unilaterally, that is, without Spain's consent, at a time when there was as yet no recognised right in international law for a territory to secede without its metropolitan state's consent nor was uti possidetis juris part of international law. Spain did not begin to relinquish its territories in the Americas until 1836 and when it recognised Argentina in 1859, it included no explicit cession or transfer of the Falklands.
C)by acquisitive prescription. This is when one state takes over another state's territory and this state doesn't protest or try to do anything about it. Some amount of time needs to pass without protest or action for prescription to be applicable. The period between Vernet's 1826 settlement and the British takeover of 1833 was simply too short for Argentina to have gained title by prescription.
On the other hand, i think that the right word is not conquest, it's ocupation, anyway ocupating the patagonia didn't mean that they had to steal the lands to the indigenous, and kill many of then.
Mar 30th, 2010 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, the correct legal word is conquest, not occupation. See definition of occupation above. Those lands were not terra nullius, Spain had signed treaties with the indigenous peoples marking the borders between the viceroyalty and indigenous territories. You do not sign border treaties unless you recognise the other part's sovereignty
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frontera_ind%C3%ADgena_sur_del_Virreinato_del_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata
#37 Rhaurie : i mean that ....in two options ,are ;
Mar 30th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 ) : if Scotland and England are independent from each other, then
their Maritime Boundaries would be very different from present one
with Norway !
2 ): the current Maritime Boundaries have more inner-zones in favor
of Scotland side more than England side ..with Norway Borderline !
in other words ; there are sharing problems between England and [Scotland (should has more)] on the North Sea Oil Revenues !!
in other words ; if Scotland declares independence from England ,then
Scotland and Norway have more Oil revenues than current from !!
.....“Jorge, it makes me laugh that you claim to never insult people of here. But you will reply to this and call me a pirate.”......
Mar 30th, 2010 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Sorry, by calling you a pirate, I'm not insulting you, it is just the truth!
.....“So Argentina's whole claim to the Falkland Islands is based on a small settlement that established itself on an island for a handful of months after it was discovered, first stepped on, named and claimed by the British, and was later ejected by the British and almost 200 years later, after 8 generations of British descendents living on the islands, Argentina say that they have a legitimate claim over the islands... it seems the Argentines in the 1830s were the squatters...”.....
- Unbelievable I have to repeat it all the time.
First of all, you didn't discover it! There are many versions of the discovery, eevn the british recognize that could there have been people who discovered them before John Davis. What???? Do you think I am lying??? Why don't you ask the official raf site??? lol
http://www.raf.mod.uk/falklands/linepre1982.html
Second of all, the french established a settlement there before you and after you did it, France recognized spanish sovereignty and later expell you for beig ilegally there.
Taking into account the possibility of war, Spain agreed to let UK re-establish its Port Egmont settlement without giving up sovereignty over the archipelago and with the promise for you to leave, which you did leaving a plaque (according to you) and alleging economic reasons due to war independence in North America. Spain remained in the islands ever since till 1811. More over, the independence war in North America (your current excuse for abandoning the islands) lasted till 1783, you didn't return till 1833 (when you invaded), there are 50 years between 1783 and 1833, that could perfectly be a prescription title of sovereignty in favour of Spain who lasted there till 1811. To sum up, YOU HAD NO RIGHTS OVER MALVINAS IN 1833 WHEN YOU INVADED THEM.
........“I am sure Jorge will call me a pirate, and insult me in a number of ways, tell me I am brainwashed, blah blah jajajaja, but this is the basis for Argentina's claim??? Brilliant.”.........
Mar 30th, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- No need to insult you unless you do it first.
The basis of Argentine claim is much more bigger than my last post.
You always accuse us of brainwashed people, but you religiously believe what your government says.
......“Jorgebobo
Mar 30th, 2010 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, my statement does invalidate yours, I said you should look at the ICJ's record to see if it was biased. Dab did the hard work for me and put that record up. You can even check it yourself if you want to.”.......
- You keep insulting me Archibald eh!
Could you consider a impartial ICJ when it has 15 members, which 5 of them are permanently elected by UK, USA, Russia, China and France??? Is that impartial??? Please answer!!!! I have the justificated right of suspicion.
........“That's 6 cases involving the UK which went to a ruling and how many of those did the UK win? Two and a half. I don't think that's a biased court!
You have given us no evidence to the contrary Jorgebobo, and until you do, your statement is well and truly invalidated.”.......
- Please, answer my last question.
.......“And what's more Jorgebobo, the fact that you think Blair and Bush can be parties to a case at the ICJ just demonstrates your ignorance of the ICJ and international law in general...”........
- More insults.
I was wrong about mixing ICJ with Blair and Bush, but they desserve to be judged though.
As you can see, I'm not an arrogant like all of you. I can admit when I'm wrong.
.......”Argentina lost its case over the Beagle Channel dispute because Argentine maps showed the disputed islands as Chilean (until Argentina changed its mind).”........
Mar 30th, 2010 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Argentina didn't lose Beagle Channel dispute because of maps!!!! It lost because of a prior treaty between the two countries signed in 1881. Maps are just anecdotes.
Jorge! - “ ... the french established a settlement there before you and after you did it, France recognized spanish sovereignty and later expell you for beig ilegally there....”
Mar 31st, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The French did establish a settlement but made no formal claim to the islands. The French did recognise that the islands were spanish under the papal bull and left after receiving compensation. The French never ejected anyone.
Jorge! - “ ... Taking into account the possibility of war, Spain agreed to let UK re-establish its Port Egmont settlement without giving up sovereignty over the archipelago and with the promise for you to leave, ...”
Spain was forced to back down because they could not enter into a war without the support of France. The french king refused to back them so they 'lost' the argument with Britain and had to agree to the British demands. Britain demanded restitution of the settlement and all its equipment and a renunciation of the Viceroyalty's actions. Britain got what it demanded. The supposed 'secret promise' to leave is a fairy story told to Argentine children. The issue pf sovereignty was left for future discussions which never took place.
Jorge! - “ ... you didn't return till 1833 ...”
The British didn't have a permanent settlement there although it could be argued the Vernett's settlement, being there with British permission, was a British settlement. In any case British ships continued to anchor in the islands and form temporary settlements. Jewett found many British ships at anchor when he arrived in 1820. British rights were preserved by usage. There is no evidence of anything similar by Spain after 1811.
-----Second of all, the french established a settlement there before you and after you did it, France recognized spanish sovereignty and later expell you for beig ilegally there.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0If France recognised Spanish sovereignty, that was France's problem because Spain had none. Until France transferred its settlement, Spain had no valid claim to the Falklands at all. Spain had accepted as early as 1648 that actual possession was the mark of ownership of land, and Spain had had no possession of the Falklands before the French transfer. There was nothing illegal about Britain's settlement. Spain had no valid claim and France's small settlement simply wasn't large enough to have effective control of the whole archipelago.
------Taking into account the possibility of war, Spain agreed to let UK re-establish its Port Egmont settlement without giving up sovereignty over the archipelago and with the promise for you to leave, which you did leaving a plaque (according to you) and alleging economic reasons due to war independence in North America.
Agreed to let? Spain had no choice. When France decided not to support Spain if Spain and Britain went to war, Spain backed down. And there is no evidence that any such promise was ever made:
http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F10.2a&pageseq=163
Read from VISCOUNT PALMERSTON to M. DE MORENO. on page 150 to Palmerston's signature on page 162
There is some evidence that Spain suggested a mutual withdrawal, but no evidence that Britain agreed to it. See the letters on page 155:
----Spain remained in the islands ever since till 1811. More over, the independence war in North America (your current excuse for abandoning the islands) lasted till 1783, you didn't return till 1833 (when you invaded), there are 50 years between 1783 and 1833, that could perfectly be a prescription title of sovereignty in favour of Spain who lasted there till 1811. To sum up, YOU HAD NO RIGHTS OVER MALVINAS IN 1833 WHEN YOU INVADED THEM.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0What you seem incapable of getting into your head is that presenting lots of evidence to prove they were Spanish does not prove in any way that they were ever Argentine. See my post # 38
---Could you consider a impartial ICJ when it has 15 members, which 5 of them are permanently elected by UK, USA, Russia, China and France??? Is that impartial??? Please answer!!!! I have the justificated right of suspicion.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.icj-cij.org/court/index.php?p1=1&p2=2
5 judges are not elected by UK, USA, Russia, China and France. Each judge is elected by a majority of the 15 members of the Security Council and by a majority of the 192 members of the General Assembly.
Thanks for that Dab .... from the reference I've been able updat some of my notes
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 01771 - Without French support the Spanish back down and the Ambassador to Britain (?), Prince Masseran delivers a declaration stating that the Spanish King “disavows the violent enterprise of Buccarelli,” and promises “to restore the port and fort called Egmont, with all the artillery and stores, according to the inventory.” The injury was acknowledged and satisfied. The Spanish stated that their ‘satisfaction’ did not “ … preclude the question of prior right …” [This preservation of a Spanish claim caused an outcry in Britain in answer to which Samuel Johnson prepared his ‘Thoughts on the Late Transactions Respecting Falkland’s Islands 1771’.] In Spain however “They keep the declaration here as secret as possible. I do not find any to whom they have shown it, except those to whom they are obliged to communicate it. They also report that we have given a verbal assurance to evacuate Falkland's Island in the space of two months”. [Reported by James Harris, Esq. to the Earl of Rochford.] The Earl responded, ”I think it right to acquaint you, that the Spanish ambassador pressed me to have some hopes given him of our agreeing to a mutual abandoning of Falkland's Islands, to which I replied, that it was impossible for me to enter on that subject with him, as the restitution must precede every discourse relating to those islands”. Rochford wrote to the Admiralty on 15th March, “ ….Your lordships will direct Captain Stott to behave with the greatest prudence and civility towards the Spanish commander and the subjects of his Catholic Majesty, carefully avoiding any thing that might give occasion to disputes or animosity, and strictly restraining the crews of the ships under his command in this respect; but if, at or after the restitution to be made, the Spanish commander should make any protest against his Majesty's right to Port Egmont, or Falkland's Islands, it is his Majesty's pleasure that
that the commander of his ships should answer the same by a counter-protest, in proper terms, of his Majesty's right to the whole of the said islands, and against the right of his Catholic Majesty to any part of the same”.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British return to Port Egmont on 13th Sept. Captain Stott subsequently reported the handover to the Admiralt, adding “ … The next day Don Francisco, with all the troops and subjects of the King of Spain, departed in a schooner which they had with them. I have only to add, that this transaction was effected with the greatest appearance of good faith, without the least claim or reserve being made by the Spanish officer in behalf of his Court.” Spain also maintains its settlement at Puerto Soledad, administered by Buenos Aries.
It would appear that the Spanish crown was embarrassed by the climb-down and as a result tried to mitigate any criticism by invention the 'promise' of the British to withdraw after 2 months. An invention which the letter from the Earl of Rochford disproves. Interesting that the official British reply to any objection by Spain is to the effect that the British claim covers all the islands whereas the Spanish crown's claim is to only a 'part'?
#40 means that Britons grabs Scotland's oil reserve rights !!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 07:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Scotland is British Ed. How can Britain grab its own rights? Fool!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 041 Jorge
Mar 31st, 2010 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Taking into account the possibility of war, Spain agreed to let UK re-establish its Port Egmont settlement without giving up sovereignty over the archipelago and with the promise for you to leave”
You repeat the same argument over and over, but Spain did not “let”, it had no choice. Yes Spain didn't give up sovereignty of the islands but neither did Great Britain. As for the “promise to leave” - where is you evidence to back up this claim?
All differences between Argentina and Great Britain were settled in the 1850 convention of settlement. Argentina did not state that the Falklands were a matter of difference, Great Britain was in possession of the Falklands at the time. If the sovereignty of the islands were still in dispute at the time then Argentina should have ahd a clause built into the Convention, Argetina didn't so Argentinas claim officially ended in 1850.
OKay Jorge, I will play Devil's adovate with you...
Mar 31st, 2010 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0”Second of all, the french established a settlement there before you and after you did it, France recognized spanish sovereignty and later expell you for beig ilegally there.
Taking into account the possibility of war, Spain agreed to let UK re-establish its Port Egmont settlement without giving up sovereignty over the archipelago and with the promise for you to leave, which you did leaving a plaque (according to you) and alleging economic reasons due to war independence in North America. Spain remained in the islands ever since till 1811. More over, the independence war in North America (your current excuse for abandoning the islands) lasted till 1783, you didn't return till 1833 (when you invaded), there are 50 years between 1783 and 1833, that could perfectly be a prescription title of sovereignty in favour of Spain who lasted there till 1811. To sum up, YOU HAD NO RIGHTS OVER MALVINAS IN 1833 WHEN YOU INVADED THEM.“
So you have taught me what you believe to be history...in this this little ”history” lesson...You kept mentioning Spain and France, but you didnt mention Argentina, and if Britain (according to you) had no legal rights to the Islands, how does Argentina?
Anyway this is all a moot point, it was 200 years ago, and 8 generations later, the popluation want to remain British. And that is final.
Jorge, have you ever been to the Falklands? If you havent, you should come. You should see this place yourself, its the cheapest way for an Argentine to visit Britain.
I don't have to insult you Jorgebobo. You do a perfectly good job of insulting yourself.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 12:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should check the ICJ website again, because you are incorrect about the election of judges.
Anyway, back to where we were. You said the ICJ was biased and yet you have not yet provided any evidence in support of that. I'm still waiting.
I also notice that you have moved the goalposts from “the ICJ is biased” to “I have to right to be suspicious that the ICJ is biased”. Two very different things. Support what you originally said Jorgelitonto: That the ICJ is biased. Show us your evidence.
#52 ...yu are right.. Scotland is British...but not English ..!!!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 051 ed “#40 means that Britons grabs Scotland's oil reserve rights !! ”
Mar 31st, 2010 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 056 ed“#52 ...yu are right.. Scotland is British...but not English ..!!!”
Not really seeing your point here ed. The oil reserves in the North see of the coast of Scotland are British because Scotland is part of Britain, as is England.
If Scotland becames independant then they would inherit control of any of the oil or gas fields as they are of the Scotish Coast. As Scotland is currently still a part of Great Britain I fail to see what your point is, and I have now idea how this has any relevance to the Falkland islands anyway.
.....“The French never ejected anyone.”....
Mar 31st, 2010 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Yes I know it was Spain, that was aomision of me.
All the rest you said is crap. British whalers were not officials. There is not fairy tales but yours.
The restitucion was about Port Egmont, not the entire archipelago.
Your settlement BTW was ilegal/clandestine.
Accept it PIRATE!
58 Jorge “Your settlement BTW was ilegal/clandestine.”
Mar 31st, 2010 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How was it illegal?
Can a settlement be Clandestine? Can't imagine they are the easiest thing to hide.
......“If France recognised Spanish sovereignty, that was France's problem because Spain had none. Until France transferred its settlement, Spain had no valid claim to the Falklands at all. Spain had accepted as early as 1648 that actual possession was the mark of ownership of land, and Spain had had no possession of the Falklands before the French transfer. There was nothing illegal about Britain's settlement. Spain had no valid claim and France's small settlement simply wasn't large enough to have effective control of the whole archipelago.”.......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Crap!!!! The opposite is true. I won't explain it all again.
......“Agreed to let? Spain had no choice. When France decided not to support Spain if Spain and Britain went to war, Spain backed down. And there is no evidence that any such promise was ever made”........
- You have in your country many “classified” files about this, why don't you ask your government to make them public???
You hide many of them on the first week of april in 1982.
........“What you seem incapable of getting into your head is that presenting lots of evidence to prove they were Spanish does not prove in any way that they were ever Argentine.”......
- Wrong! We claimed them in 1820 and noone made objetion. You recognize us as a country and again you made no objetion. You had no rights to expell our authorities in 1833.
.......“5 judges are not elected by UK, USA, Russia, China and France. Each judge is elected by a majority of the 15 members of the Security Council and by a majority of the 192 members of the General Assembly.”.......
- I've read your link and I took this excerpt.........“”Although there is no entitlement to membership on the part of any country, the Court has always included judges of the nationality of the permanent members of the Security Council.“”.........
May I ask why???
......“If France recognised Spanish sovereignty, that was France's problem because Spain had none. Until France transferred its settlement, Spain had no valid claim to the Falklands at all. Spain had accepted as early as 1648 that actual possession was the mark of ownership of land, and Spain had had no possession of the Falklands before the French transfer. There was nothing illegal about Britain's settlement. Spain had no valid claim and France's small settlement simply wasn't large enough to have effective control of the whole archipelago.”.......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0---- Crap!!!! The opposite is true. I won't explain it all again.
Read this:
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/part.php?recordID=59
and provide me with evidence that France had established control of the entire archipelago. That Spain had already established itself in the Falklands before the French transfer and therefore had a valid claim that preceded those of Britain and France. And please don't mention Tordesillas, Tordesillas never had any validity to establish sovereignty over a territory, even Spain had accepted that by 1648, as I mention above. Show me real evidence.
--- You have in your country many “classified” files about this, why don't you ask your government to make them public???
You hide many of them on the first week of april in 1982.
I can assure you there is nothing classified about events of the 1770s. Read the link at the Darwin website I provided
- Wrong! We claimed them in 1820 and noone made objetion. You recognize us as a country and again you made no objetion. You had no rights to expell our authorities in 1833.
Again read this
http://www.malvinasonline.com.ar/g82/artic/part.php?recordID=59
It deals with your very points. And read my post # 38
--- I've read your link and I took this excerpt.........“”Although there is no entitlement to membership on the part of any country, the Court has always included judges of the nationality of the permanent members of the Security Council.“”.........
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0May I ask why???
No idea. But the point is your statement that 5 judges are elected by 5 states isn't true. Any candidate must get a majority of votes from both the Security council and the General Assembly. No state's vote counts for more than any other state's vote
“British whalers were not officials. There is not fairy tales but yours.”
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yea, and like Jewitt the privateer (ie pirate) was an official!!! Sometimes you don't realise how funny you can be Jorgelito.
.......“Anyway this is all a moot point, it was 200 years ago, and 8 generations later, the popluation want to remain British. And that is final.”......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I DON'T THINK SO!!!!
.......“Jorge, have you ever been to the Falklands? If you havent, you should come. You should see this place yourself, its the cheapest way for an Argentine to visit Britain.”.....
- Sorry body, that is not Britain and BELIEVE ME, we'll be there again like in 1833 excercising our rights.
....“I don't have to insult you Jorgebobo. You do a perfectly good job of insulting yourself.
Perhaps you should check the ICJ website again, because you are incorrect about the election of judges.”.......
- Sí me insultaste la p**a madre que te parió hijo de una grandísima p**a.
This is what your f*cking site says....“”Although there is no entitlement to membership on the part of any country, the Court has always included judges of the nationality of the permanent members of the Security Council.“”........
Do you have something to say about this, you SOB?!?!?!
.....“Anyway, back to where we were. You said the ICJ was biased and yet you have not yet provided any evidence in support of that. I'm still waiting.”....
- With permanent members from countries of the security council it is biased. Y punto pelotudo!!!!!
......“I also notice that you have moved the goalposts from “the ICJ is biased” to “I have to right to be suspicious that the ICJ is biased”. Two very different things. Support what you originally said Jorgelitonto: That the ICJ is biased. Show us your evidence.”........
- Y lo ratifico todo pedazo de pajero!!!!!!
.......”Yea, and like Jewitt the privateer (ie pirate) was an official!!! Sometimes you don't realise how funny you can be Jorgelito.”.....
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- jewett was working for the government pedazo de pelotudo, marmota sin cerebro.
.....“No idea. But the point is your statement that 5 judges are elected by 5 states isn't true. Any candidate must get a majority of votes from both the Security council and the General Assembly. No state's vote counts for more than any other state's vote”.....
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I extract this excerpt from your last post...........“”No idea“”......
You should have said that from the very begining. Chau!!!!
dab14763, I've read your links, don't make any difference.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chau!!!
Jewett, an employee of the government in the loosest sense of the word, but not an official. Sorry Jorge.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, Jorge, and even if the ICJ judges always include at least one from the countries of the security council that does not prove anything.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to back up your assertion with evidence but you have not. I've at least shown evidence that the ICJ is not biased towards the UK. More than 50 years worth of case history.
You on the other hand have clearly demonstrated your ignorance by saying individuals should be tried by the ICJ, have been incorrect about the way judges are elected, and then slipped and slided around first saying that the ICJ is biased, then saying you had a right to suspect it was biased and now that judges from the the permanent member countries are biased, yet you back these assertions with ZERO evidence.
from the same icj page
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Once elected, a Member of the Court is a delegate neither of the government of his own country nor of that of any other State. �Unlike most other organs of international organizations, the Court is not composed of representatives of governments.� Members of the Court are independent judges whose first task, before taking up their duties, is to make a solemn declaration in open court that they will exercise their powers impartially and conscientiously.
In order to guarantee his or her independence, no Member of the Court can be dismissed unless, in the unanimous opinion of the other Members, he/she no longer fulfils the required conditions. �This has in fact never happened.
No Member of the Court may engage in any other occupation during his/her term. He/she is not allowed to exercise any political or administrative function, nor to act as agent, counsel or advocate in any case. Any doubts with regard to this question are settled by decision of the Court.
Jorge,
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If, as you claim, the Falklands were Spanish territory before Jewett's claim, it makes no difference whether Jewett was an official or not, whether he was sent or not, it makes no difference whether he planted the UP flag or the Buenos Aires flag, or no flag, it makes no difference what he said to stake the claim, etc, etc, because if they were Spanish, they were not Terra Nullius in 1820 because Spain had not relinquished them and therefore Jewett's actions had no legal validiity
-----dab14763, I've read your links, don't make any difference.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chau!!!
In other words you admit that you are incapable of proving that I'm wrong.
........“Oh, Jorge, and even if the ICJ judges always include at least one from the countries of the security council that does not prove anything.”.......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- ICJ include one of EACH of the countries of the security council, you SOB!!!!
........“You on the other hand have clearly demonstrated your ignorance by saying individuals should be tried by the ICJ, have been incorrect about the way judges are elected, and then slipped and slided around first saying that the ICJ is biased, then saying you had a right to suspect it was biased and now that judges from the the permanent member countries are biased, yet you back these assertions with ZERO evidence.”........
- Por qué no leés esto pelotudo!!!!
“””Since the 1960s four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court. The exception was China (the Republic of China until 1971, the People's Republic of China from 1971 onwards), which did not have a judge on the Court from 1967–1985, because it did not put forward a candidate. The rule on a geopolitical composition of the bench exists despite the fact that there is no provision for it in the Statute of the ICJ.“””
Qué tenés para decir ahora pajero?!?!?!?!
......“If, as you claim, the Falklands were Spanish territory before Jewett's claim, it makes no difference whether Jewett was an official or not, whether he was sent or not, it makes no difference whether he planted the UP flag or the Buenos Aires flag, or no flag, it makes no difference what he said to stake the claim, etc, etc, because if they were Spanish, they were not Terra Nullius in 1820 because Spain had not relinquished them and therefore Jewett's actions had no legal validiity”......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Spain did not relinquish Tucuman and we occupied it, nor they relinquished Malvinas, we claimed them and occupied them. You recognize us as a country and made no objetion to that. Is that too difficult to understand for you????
Besides, under what law you expelled our authorities from there when you had none right to do so???
......“In other words you admit that you are incapable of proving that I'm wrong.”......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I'm proving it. Chau
in -200- years of - 8- generations !!?? very very interesting !!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0200/8 = ( 25 years ) per capita living period !! almost Penguins' periods !
(..also while listening spiritual Sir Jason Archibald..distracter dab14763..
and someothers..).my advice for them to slip away from -short life span- place to more comfortable places as soon as possible !
jajajajajaja. In maths x = w + y + z
Mar 31st, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0x = self-determination
w = nº of islanders
y = nº of penguins
z = nº of sheeps.
In this case z>>w and y>>w so that (y + z)>>>w, this means w is an irrelevant term and you can put it aside. Only y and z could claim self-determination. No more discussion!!
Jorge, I'm still waiting for evidence of ICJ bias towards the permanent members of the Security Council.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All you've done is repeat ad nauseam what we all already know.
Like I said before, the fact that there are always judges from the permanent member countries does not prove anything.
Please provide the evidence. Let me spell it out: Show us in the case history over the life of the ICJ that is has been showing favour towards the permanent member countries.
jorge ! you are magnificent ! Gauss will envy you !!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0explanation for Sir Archibald :
Gauss is a genious German Mathematician !
I looked for any Briton Mathematician but I did'nt find ..!!
gdr perhaps you don't quite grasp the term “Familial generation”? Which is the average time between a mother's first offspring and her daughter's first offspring, 25 years doesn't mean that they have kids and the suddenly die!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you never heard of variables either? So average Life expectencey was lower 200 years ago, and people bred quicker, but then! You know what over a very short period, life expectencey got longer and people had kids later, so maybe in 1816-1916 generation average is 22 years= 4.5 but then next 100 years, it becomes 28 years!= 3.5 generations! Your nearly there gdr, soon you will be out of Nursery and playing in kindergarden!
Jorge as per usual is struggling to come up with anything intelligent I will just leave him to play with his knob in the sandpit.....
ed-Steven Hawking? only the most brilliant mind in existence?
Mar 31st, 2010 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0........“Like I said before, the fact that there are always judges from the permanent member countries does not prove anything.”.......
Mar 31st, 2010 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- That is exactly the proof. If you have permanent members of a particular nationality it is biased. Otherwise, why do they have them?
End of this story!!!!!!!
But the key point is they are not biased Jorge, they have no motivation to be biased, take UK judges so many of their rulings have been against the Govt, Judges by their very nature act impartially otherwise who can you be a “Judge”
Mar 31st, 2010 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure though that if we put half a dozen Judges from other countries and they still came down against your opinion you would still not be happy with the verdict.
Shows us an example then of a Judge in the ICJ acting in a biased manner for his countries own interest? I implore you!
Oh dear - this explains why Jorge is so mad.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.youtube.com/watch?v=5IJmcU-kwMM&NR=1
“Argentina has more psychiatrists per person than any other nation in the world. And Argetines seem more than happy to make use of them.”
When is your next appointment Jorge? Tell them that you want your money back as they have failed you;-)
The reason why Argentina will not go to the ICJ is because it knows that it has no valid claim to the Falklands - all this talk of the ICJ being biased against poor old Argentina is rubbish and just a smoke screen. Argentina hates the ICJ because it went against it with regard to Chile.
Mar 31st, 2010 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina will never go to the ICJ as that would put an end, in the eyes of the whole world, to its pathetic claim.
........“I'm sure though that if we put half a dozen Judges from other countries and they still came down against your opinion you would still not be happy with the verdict.”.....
Mar 31st, 2010 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I would not be happy with the veredict, but would accept it. That's the difference.
Christine UK, you couldn't put up with the links I put to you a while ago, could you?!?!?!?!
You are surfing youtube putting “Argentina” on the search blank, aren't you!?!??!
Now that's funny cucky boy!
.......“Argentina hates the ICJ because it went against it with regard to Chile. ”........
- That's bullshit. Argentina went to the ICJ two years ago regarding the pulp plant in Uruguay because of the treaty of Río Uruguay stipulates that.
In 20 days we'll know if Argentina wins or loses.
The difference here is that we are not required to go to ICJ to solve Malvinas dispute, you ignorant!
The pathetic is you!!!!!!
Psycoanalisis is very interesting to study. I don't have appointment with them, you pig!!!!
Mar 31st, 2010 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may need some of our proffessionals since your country is struggling under the sh*t!
We may be under it Jorgy boy but you're full of it !
Mar 31st, 2010 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No argument, no hope, no problem ! :-)
No, Jorge. That's not proof. The judges from the permanent member states do not even form a majority. You have failed to prove the ICJ is biased towards the permanent member states.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0We could argue for ever about the events of 1833, wether Britain had the rights to eject the Argentine garrison or not etc.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0But as Argentina gave up any claim it might have had on the Falklands in 1850 (see below) what happened in 1833 isn't relevant to the sovereignty arguement unless Argentina can explain how/why the convention of settlement doesn't apply
“Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship” which was signed on 24 November 1849 and ratified by both sides in Buenos Aires on 15 May 1850.
Jorge whined “Psycoanalisis is very interesting to study. I don't have appointment with them!!!!”
Apr 01st, 2010 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are clearly in denial Jorge - it seems that all the good work of your shrink is for nought;-)
Jorge spat out “You may need some of our proffessionals since your country is struggling under the sh*t!”
LOL - this from one whose country is shown to be both corrupt and insane?
Jorge ejaculated “You are surfing youtube putting “Argentina” on the search blank, aren't you!?!??!”
Apr 01st, 2010 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL - this from the child who did just that prior and cannot take the truth about his own pathetic country;-)
.......“Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship”.........
Apr 01st, 2010 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- re-establishment of friendshi?????? why? What happened?
As usual you were pissing us off during those years doing a blockade in River of Plate. That's the context of that treaty. Stop with your especulation.
Christine UK you said me and my country are pathtetics among other things (I think you couldn't put up with the video of irakies yesterday), but who is the pathetic????? me or you who are always replaying me and always refering to me???
You can't make a comment without talking about me. Accept it, you admire me.
Archibald, stop it!!!!!! That was enough proof. The only thing that failed here is your birth!
Apr 01st, 2010 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - re-establishment of friendshi?????? why? What happened?
Apr 01st, 2010 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As usual you were pissing us off during those years doing a blockade in River of Plate. That's the context of that treaty. Stop with your especulation.
The convention of settlement was not limited to territory, it was a peace treaty which resolved ALL differences between Argentina and Great Britain. No where does it say it say all differences apart from the Falklands.
No, sorry Jorgebobo, you have given us no evidence. You never do when you know you are wrong...
Apr 01st, 2010 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The latest RNS from Desire has indicated that they are to continue drilling for another 200 meters. Looks like they havent fully comleted the data collection on what is the first exploratory drill in this campaign. The SP re-gained its day losses so it looks like this first drill is not over until the fat lady sings.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Plenty of time to become a millionaire!
J. A. ROBERT, you didn't answer my comment, you asked me, if patagonia was argentine, then why is called as an act of conquest what roca did, i told you what i think about it in another comment.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 09:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Since colonial times, the whole patagonia was under
the jurisdiction of the buenos aires's intendance, anyway those lands were populated by the indigenous, but it does not mean that those territorys were not under spanish goverment like all the rest of the viceroalty.
When the u.p. declared it's independence unilaterally, the congress from tucuman didn't declare the emancipation only over those territorys that were populated by the settlers and the criollos, the patagonia was one more part of our territory including the mavinas too.
In some moment an argentina authority had to ocupate those lands, because they were the patrimony of the people from the u.p. and they belonged to the indigenous too.
About roca, he could say what ever he wanted, i dont care in absolut what a murderer and hijo de mil puta like him could say, if he said that the patagonia was not ours untill he took them by the force, he said that, because he wanted to justify the genocide and the despolling that he did with the pueblos originarios, he had no need to kill not even one of them, the patagonia has allways been such a huge territory, i could ocupate it with any genocide.
On the other hand, i think that the right word is not conquest, you con agree or not with me, i think that the right word is ocupation, because the arg gov had right to ocupate the patagonia, because it was our patrimony.
JORGE, necesito hablar con vos seriamente, como veras, a lo largo de todos estos meses, te habras dado cuenta que a mi me interesa a l igual que a vos la causa malvinas, mas alla de que nuestros puntos de vista son muy diferentes por suerte, del mismo modo todos son igual de respetables, por mas que no compartamos lo que el otro piensa.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Necesito pedirte ayuda para preguntarte, si tenes alguna evidencia que pueda refutar lo que dicen los isleños acerca de que la argentina reconocio la legitimidad de la soberania britanica en 1849, y que durante 91 años no hubo reclamo alguno, lo cual haria perder los derechos soberanos del pais sobre el archipielago, si podes ayudarme te lo agradeceria, porque yo la verdad que no encuentro la suficiente evidencia para refutarle a los isleños, y los argumentos de mis profesores son muy opuestos a lo que los britanicos sostienen, desde ya muchas gracias.
YeEEEah top score 100 points!
Apr 01st, 2010 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have to admit Axel, that if Patagonia was under the Jurisdiction of the Spanish.
Apr 01st, 2010 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why on earth did the Buenos Aires authorities find it neccesary to set up areas of control and Forts really far inland, logic dictates you needed to establish control over an area you did not yet have control over?
So it seems to me odd that the Argentine government only took an interest in the region nearly 50 years after the creation of Rio Plata when you say it was already yours for the taking.
Most analysts when looking at countries expansions note that it happens when the pressures of population, economic growth and strategic defence force it to do so? So thats a reasonable jugdement to make, Buenos aires expanded to into patagonia to A) Allow vast living area, B) To exploit vast farmland, waters and minerals, C) To prevent any foreign or domestic power gaining control and thus threatening BA?
hardly Patrimony it was yours for the taking because you could.....pity it was at the expense of the natives like most sorry tales of white mans power..
Axel, no siendo un historiador, lo único que te puedo decir es que el tratado de amistad Argentina-Uk/Francia, firmado en 1849 y ratificado en 1850 debe ser visto dentro del contexto. Creo que hay que ponerse a pensar por qué habría de firmar la argentina un tratado de amistad con un país con el que se gozaba de plenas relaciones diplomaticas!!!
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 04:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Supongo que lo habrás leído, por si ese no es el caso te cuento que en 1845 el Uruguay atravesaba una guerra civil entre dos bandos. Uno de ellos, al mando de Manuel Oribe, le pidió ayuda a Rosas que gobernaba la Argentina por ese entonces para expulsar al “ocupante ilegal” del gobierno uruguayo (Fructuoso Rivera). Rosas lo apoyo militarmente y debido al desequilibrio de fuerzas Montevideo quedó parcialmente bloqueada.
Esta intervención externa de Rosas en el Uruguay provocó una vez más en el Reino Unido (apoyada por Francia) las ganas de aplicar su usual lógica y costumbre del “divide y reinarás” y meter de esa manera sus narices en donde no deben.
Con la excusa de “pacificar”, Gran Bretaña y Francia enviaron cuantiosas fuerzas navales pretendiendo en realidad controlar el Río de La Plata y los ríos interiores siendo estos una ruta muy importante del comercio internacional. De más está decír que estos cuervos acudieron en defensa de Fructuoso Rivera y su gente que gobernaban de facto el Uruguay, más bien Montevideo a estas alturas.
Pidieron a Rosas el retiro de las fuerzas argentinas y Rosas se negó provocando así la intervención de lleno de estos impresentables con el resultado de la captura de las fuerzas argentinas que bloqueaban Montevideo.
Ante esta mala noticia, Rosas decidió preparar la resistencia en un lugar del Río Paraná llamado “La Vuelta de Obligado” (supongo que te sonará) y a los pocos días entraron los buques piratas y se armó la podrida. Al igual que en Malvinas, las bajas más numerosas fueron las argentinas principalmente debido a que los invasores tenían unos barcos de la p..... madre y eran muchos más.
Finalmente los HDP lograron pasar y ascender por el río hacia el norte. Victoria parcial la de ellos ya que de regreso por el río los entrerianos y santafesinos con los huevos por el piso de tener que aguantar a estos sinvergüenzas le “cascotearon” los barcos y le incendiaron un par. Todo el comercio que pretendian realizar se les fué como agua entre los dedos y toda su campaña politico-militar resultó ser una garcha. Hambrientos y enfermos se volvieron al punto de partida que había sido Montevideo.
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 05:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0San Martín que todavía vivía dijo desde Francia “”Los interventores habrían visto que los argentinos no son empanadas que se comen sin más trabajo que el de abrir la boca. (…) Esta contienda es, en mi opinión, de tanta trascendencia como la de nuestra emancipación de España“”.
Militarmente nos habían ganado por un pelo (casi como en Malvinas, fijate lo que contó Nicolas Kazanseu en C5N) pero comercialmente no ganaron nada, solo la lección (mal aprendida si nos fijamos en sus hechos futuros) de que a los demás paises se los debe respetar.
Es entonces cuando se decide firmar el tratado de amistad con el Reino Unido primero y con Francia despues. estos tratados reconocen al Río Paraná como interno de la Argentina y sujeto a sus leyes.
Es cierto que el tratado dice que “se dejan de lado todas las diferencias existentes entre la Argentina y el Reino Unido” pero bajo ningún punto de vista esto tenía que ver con el diferendo con respecto a Malvinas, este tenía únicamente que ver con el conflicto del Uruguay en el que ellos solitos se metieron sin que se los llame.
Por supuesto, que los sujetos entrenados por la corona que postean en esta página te van a decír que la omision de Argentina es un implicito reconocimiento a la soberanía de ellos en Malvinas, pero de la misma manera nosotros podemos argumentar que no era necesaria ninguna reserva con respecto a las islas ya que estas fueron implicitamente reconocidas por el Reino Unido como argentinas en el tratado de 1825.
En fin, como verás, la histaria argentina está plagada de agresiones por parte del Rino Unido (1806, 1807, 1833, 1845 y 1982) sin mencionar sus políticas desestabilizadoras que llevaron al derrocamiento de Perón. Winston Churchill dijo en referencia a Perón “”NO PERMITIREMOS un brote nazi-fascista en la región“” y de ahí en más para la mayoría de nosotros es todo historia conocida.
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0La historia de Malvinas va a ser siempre controvertida por que siempre vas a encontrar a estudiosos argumentando para un lado o para el otro. Lo único cierto es que desde 1833 existe un problema serio en el Atlantico Sur que debe ser resuelto y para ello hace falta en primer lugar reconocer que existe uno y en segundo lugar buena predisposición al dialogo.
P.D. Te recomiendo por si no lo hiciste ver la nota extensa que le hicieron a Nicolas Kazanseu en C5N. Vas a ver allí al único periodista que practicamente cubrió la guerra de punta a punta y cuya carrera periodistica en Argentina fue destruída por la politiquería barata de los milicos y sucesores gobiernos democráticos al ubicarlo como “la cara de la derrota” cuando lo único que hizo fue informar y llevar Malvinas en su pecho. Te resultará interesante ver que el es quién tiene como “trofeo de guerra” la bandera pirata arriada el 2 de Abril. Dijo que en algún momento quedara en algún museo.
Saludos
To MercoPress, I apology for writing in Spanish, as you must know, I'm not proficient in English and there are some words I don't know, besides I cannot express some feelings in English, again I apology.
Has anyone noticed how Jorgy boy lapses into spanish everytime he realises that he can't win .... which is everytime obviously :-)
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0You stupid, I was talking to Axel. Besides he understands me in Spanish, if you don't, go to study idiot.
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0why study ... English is the main languge of the world ... and of the islands too ..... and that's no problem Jorgy boy .. I speak english :-)
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0That was a very interesting history lesson Jorge.
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Es cierto que el tratado dice que “se dejan de lado todas las diferencias existentes entre la Argentina y el Reino Unido” pero bajo ningún punto de vista esto tenía que ver con el diferendo con respecto a Malvinas, este tenía únicamente que ver con el conflicto del Uruguay en el que ellos solitos se metieron sin que se los llame.”
If the above is true then why did the messages to congress stop the following year, and for over 90 years subsequent to that? I think actions speak louder than words and it's clear from Argentine actions that they had dropped their claim to the Falklands in 1850. Sorry Jorge, you can twist and turn your interpretations as much as you like but you can't change the facts.
Axel, to have sovereignty over a territory there needs to be exclusive jurisdiction and that was not that case over Patagonia with respect to the Viceroyalty, the UP or Argentina. The first time anyone had exclusive jurisdiction over Patagonia was after the act of Conquest. You also seem a bit confused by saying you agreed nothing could be inherited from Spain and yet you are certain that Patagonia was Argentina's “patrimony”. Well, those are two conflicting positions. Which is it that you really believe?
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0#107 :::::::::::::
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0tenla raht berre vone tehen pa retne ! Re terme blaht kemhe baste tonla venk onta teir ..Le reik vez rohft fe !! larne zeb ohre lesse tearhe ornaten
vek ruyt ..sahl lere konatlan kayya vo bereselink tef seye kenhet ty kayya
sarve lethe saye konan !!!!!
Oh I don't see Jorge rushing in to explain why the messages to congress stopped after 1850. Perhaps the Argentine government just didn't feel like it? Or perhaps they had dropped their claim... I'm waiting for your explanation Jorge. It better be good!
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0......“English is the main languge of the world”........
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I downloaded once a podcast from the british council to practise my english and this podcast was about the people who thinks like you, poor ignorant, in future, you will be put aside at work for not being able to speak a second language.
Anyway, do whatever you want, I'll not translate anything for you.
........“If the above is true then why did the messages to congress stop the following year, and for over 90 years subsequent to that? I think actions speak louder than words and it's clear from Argentine actions that they had dropped their claim to the Falklands in 1850. Sorry Jorge, you can twist and turn your interpretations as much as you like but you can't change the facts.”.......
- Again, that is none of your business and that is not proof of anything, just internal matters. You can make all the stupid interpretations you want, but let me tell you that your interpretations do not influenciate international law. So sad for you!
.......“Oh I don't see Jorge rushing in to explain why the messages to congress stopped after 1850. Perhaps the Argentine government just didn't feel like it? Or perhaps they had dropped their claim... I'm waiting for your explanation Jorge. It better be good!”.......
- I'm sorry for not replying rapidly, but you must know that I don't live for you. With regard to your question, just read my last paragraph!!!!
Don't worry, so far, I think that anything I say is good compared to your usual utter crap!
Jorge, you last paragraph doesn't give any clues. Just says there has been a problem since 1833, which is not true considering the messages to congress stopped for 90 odd years. The only thing causing a problem now is the contrived claim, with no basis, from the time of Juan Peron.
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You still have not explained why, if the treaty of Friendship was only with respect to the River Plate etc and did not concern the Falklands, the messages to congress stopped after 1850.
......“Jorge, you last paragraph doesn't give any clues. Just says there has been a problem since 1833, which is not true considering the messages to congress stopped for 90 odd years. The only thing causing a problem now is the contrived claim, with no basis, from the time of Juan Peron.”.....
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Messages to congress. We had a lot of problems with Chile, USA and Uruguay recently. We don't need to talk about this in the congress, please, would you stop being so stupid????
You said that the claim was revived in 1880's and now that was in the Perón time. There is at least 50 years of difference. That doesn't make sense. Anyway, Your rights over Malvinas are a contrived thing.
Why don't you ask historians about that???? Why do you have to associate that with Malvinas??? You are very boludo!
Jorgy boy - I thought you'd read Pascoe & Pepper ... if you had then you'd realise the pertinence of Argentina not mentioning the islands after 1850 in the annual Message to Congress. Evidence supporting the contention that Argentina had abandoned its claim. Very important piece of history.
Apr 02nd, 2010 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I said to you Roberts. You cannot claimanything just because the argentine congress didn't adress the issue for some years. We were back with the claim many years before Perón, so your speculation about the congress adressing the issue is irrelevant.
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not so jorgy boy ... the failure to address the claim to congress supports the assertion that Argentina had dropped its claim after the treaty of 1850 ............... very relevant :-)
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT, i am not going to parrot all the time, you dont have to agree with me if you dont feel it, i respect your vition, but that's not what i think.
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the viceroalty, see the map from the viceroalty, and see in how many jurisdcition was divided our territory, the patagonia was under the jurisdiction of the buenos aires's intendance, anyway the lands from the patagonia were populated by the pueblos originarios, but they were under spanish goverment.
About our independence, when the congress from tucuman declared the independence from spain unilaterally, that independence wasen't declared only over those territorys that were populated by the settlers, it was declared for the whole country, some day an argentine authority was going to ocupate the patagonia.
On the other hand, the consent of spain wasen't important, in fact spain recognized our independence after more than 40 years, we didn't want to keep on being under spanish goverment, if spain didn't agree with our emancipation, that was it's problem.
If i take what you say, we didnt have right to declare independent with out the consent of spain, i think it's a total falacy.
About what roca said, he ned to justify the despolling that he did with the indigenous, because he was interested on stealing their lands to give then to a few reach familys from buenos aires, so, what a thief and genocide like him coud say, is not relevant for me, he only had right to ocupate the patagonia, because it was the patrimony of all of us, it was such a huge territory, he didn't ned to kill not even one of them, but he had others interests.
JORGE, MUCHAS GRACIAS POR TU INFORMACION.
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, Patagonia was not under Spanish government. That is a fact. Apart from small exceptions like Carmen de Patagones, there was absolutely no control exercised in Patagonia. That's not my opinion, it is a fact. The maps are meaningless, they show what Spain claimed but not necessarily what they controlled or were sovereign over. Just like Argentine maps show the Falklands and dependencies and a nice slice of Antarctica as Argentine, but no thinking person would ever say they are under Argentine sovereignty. Until Roca Conquered Patagonia it was “governed” and under the sovereignty of the native people who lived there.
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If i take what you say, we didnt have right to declare independent with out the consent of spain, i think it's a total falacy”
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, that's not what I said or even meant. What I said is that you did not inherit anything from Spain. Spain is irrelevant to your independence. Your declaration of independence did not give you rights over any territory apart from that which you could gain by force or otherwise.
“he only had right to ocupate the patagonia, because it was the patrimony of all of us”
Apr 03rd, 2010 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This implies that you somehow inherited Patagonia because Spain used to claim it as part of the Viceroyalty. Like I said above. You did not inherit any rights to Patagonia. The Spanish maps are irrelevant because you did not inherit anything from Spain. You had to take control of Patagonia to make it part of Argentina. You did not have control until the Conquest. So you took Patagonia by force (and with the agreement of Chile). It was not yours before then. It was not automatically part of Argentina when you declared independence any more than other parts of the former Viceroyalty. Is that so difficult to understand!
119 axel arg, you are welcome!
Apr 04th, 2010 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0As you can see, Justin and Roberts among others like very much to make reference to that treaty, of course without mentioning WHY that treaty was signed!
it shows once again the outcome of their piracy and agression against Argentina.
Axel - “ .... if spain didn't agree with our emancipation, that was it's problem .... ”
Apr 04th, 2010 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now replace 'spain' with 'Argentina' .... and you'll see the islanders perspective :-)
124. LOL what a joke you are.
Apr 04th, 2010 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Glad I can make you smile jorgy boy, it's good to hear children laugh. But I'll never be as big a joke as Argentina's spurious claim to the Falkland Islands. A joke the world can laugh at .......
Apr 04th, 2010 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0But hey .... no problem :-)
1850 Convention of Settlement took place after the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado, when Argentina attempted to stop trade with Paraguay by denying free passage of Argentine rivers that had previously been enjoyed. The merchants in Buenos Aires wanted to maintain a protectionist regime of high prices backed up by high tariffs on cheaper foreign goods. Ultimately the treaty recognised that Argentina could strangle trade by denying access to its rivers for trading with nations upstream. I'm sure our Argentine friends have an intensely patrioric difference of opinion but that is essentially the back ground.
Apr 04th, 2010 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0127 JustinKuntz, I admire the ability to twist history you have.
Apr 04th, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't give up an inch and refuse to recognize that was another of many of your acts of piracy.
Really Jorge?
Apr 04th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So imposing a tariff on goods merely for the privelige of passing through Argentine rivers so that they are uncompetitively priced compared with Argentine goods, that you couldn't produce at a competitive price is distorting what happened.
Mmmm, I think not but you dress it in the clothes of patriotism but it boils down to the fact that Argentina couldn't compete so resorted to protectionism.
No different to what Argentina does today, then wonders why Argentine industry is uncompetitive.
You are twisting history again Kuntz!!!! Río Parana is within our borders and you were used to use it as you pleased because of your arrogance.
Apr 05th, 2010 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0We had all the right to impose tariffes. You conveniently forget to mention WHY “vuelta de obligado” took place!!!!!!
Uruguay was in the midle of a civil war and one of the sides involved asked help to Argentina, when it intervened you saw the perfect opportunity to send your royal navy alongside France with the excuse of “pacification” and starting to fight Argentina and its allys in Uruguay. You blocked our Río de La Plata during 5 years. You can't justificate that, can you Justin????
Anyway, you couldn't succed in your wish of controling the Río Paraná and had no chance other than sign that treaty that recognizes The Río Paraná as rightfully argentinian and under our juridisction.
You had no ground to do what you did those years, didn't you?
How are you gonna justificate that, Justin???
Don't come up with this is a false story of argentine educational system since there is no difference between what Uruguay says about this and what Argentina says.
Yes. You liked to use our internal rivers to trade as if it were yours, you challenged us and we didn't give up. Those were the differences that were buried in the 1850 convention. Nothing to do with Malvinas. Another myth of your destroyed.
I recognize you are very good when trying to justificate something done by your country. Very original.
Regards
.....“No different to what Argentina does today, then wonders why Argentine industry is uncompetitive.”.....
Apr 05th, 2010 - 04:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0- I think you are reading too much The Economist Justin!!!!
Our industry is very competitive and that deepens every day.
Even more, there are some ares where we have no advantages compared to countries like yours, but we are there doing our best. Just take a look (spanish/english):
www.invap.com.ar
Cheers
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!