MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina to drill two wells next to Falklands’ waters in last quarter
Several oil companies operating in Argentina have teamed up to begin hydrocarbons explorations close to Falklands’ waters. The companies have programmed to spend 140 million US dollars in two exploratory wells for which they have contracted a special drilling vessel, according to reports in the Buenos Aires press. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDid I notice that British Petroleum is in there somewhere? So that would be British drilling in British waters quite near to British drilling in Argentine waters ... funny how things turn out :-)
Apr 09th, 2010 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred, may I remind you of a recent comment by our genius Talib friend Jorge:
Apr 09th, 2010 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“You are starting to understand, it is all about business. You should understand our legislation because there chilean companies in oil industry working here. If they make business with pirates in Malvinas, then they couldn't do it here, they would have to choose. So far, they are here, perhaps due to it is more profitable. ALL ABOUT BUSINESS!!!!!!”
It seems only Argentina's “friends” get affected by this apparently effective legislation and BP does not...
bp is not drilling there. if it does people will ask the government to stop it. they have contract here till 2027.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0stop sying me talib or jihad. what do I have to say for you to do it???? maybe to say “long life to IRA”???? Huh????
Read the piece again Jorge. This is what it says:
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Companies involved are YPF, Brazil’s Petrobras and PAE which is an association of Argentina’s Bridas and British Petroleum.”
So yes, as part of PAE, BP IS drilling there. Idiot!
no idiot. you don't understand. PAE is to drill with argentine permission. Your stupid ocean guard's operators don't have it. that's the difference.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0You said “bp is not drilling there”. Now you say they are... I think you are a bit confused Jorge.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm talking about the zone controlled by you.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0you know guys what's your bigger problem is????
this one:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3920313&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=169363076972&aid=-1&id=735947307
Jihad Jorge Ejaculated “stop sying me talib or jihad. what do I have to say for you to do it???? ”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0The reason why you are being refered to as Jihad Jorge or Taliban Jorge is because of what YOU said in support of the actions of Al Quada and your wish that they kill more people. You made a rod for your own back when you said that and you were offered the chance to withdraw it. Instead of withdrwaing it you carried on and inflamed the situation. When it was pointed out that Argentineans have been killed by Al Quadi you dismissed it and carried on calling for more attacks. Even your Argentinean friends backed off from you on this. It is your own fault so stop crying!
What do you have to do for it to stop? Withdraw your comments and apologise.
Jihad Jorge Ejaculated “you know guys what's your bigger problem is????”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL - this from you!!!!! If anyone has delusions of grandeur it is Argentina. Given that Argentina is a country who denies its own colonial past and seeks to impose 21st Century colonialism upon the peaceful people of the Falkland Islands.
But jorgy boy you were quite right ... it is all about business! The Argentine government is as dazzled by the $ as anyone else and ideology quickly gets dispensed with when there are $'s about .... If there's oil then have no doubt that BP will benefit whichever side of the border its found. The question is ... will Argentina?
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jihad Jorge Ejaculated “no idiot. you don't understand. PAE is to drill with argentine permission. Your stupid ocean guard's operators don't have it. that's the difference.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you are talking about Ocean Guard working and drilling in the Falklands - of course they have permission! It came from the FIG and is recognised under international law.
8. Shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't call for them kill more people. I said they would do it anyway and you know that. Its your fault.
I don't need/have to/should apologise.
I ask to stop insulting me that way, otherwise, you can't complaint of what I say.
STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
11. they don't have it from Argentina, so they can't operate here. You don't have to get into conversations you don't understand.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred Wrote “ If there's oil then have no doubt that BP will benefit whichever side of the border its found. The question is ... will Argentina?”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are correct. BP will benefit whatever happens. Argentina stands to lose out if it carries on as it is. If it sees sense, it stands to make a fortune and that money can be used to pay for more surgery for the plastic president - I mean sort out Argentina's terrible financial situation.:-)
At the end of the day - pressure may well be put on Argentina to comply and act with reason. One only has to look at where the power really is and who controls it.
As far as I can tell everyone seems to have permission, either from the Argentine government in Argentine waters, or the Falkland Islands Government in Falkland waters ........ no problem then, eh?
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 014. you are so ignorant, aren't you. didn't you realize yet you are economically much worst than us at the moment???
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0will you wait to struggle for a piece of bread to realize????
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=3920313&o=all&op=1&view=all&subj=169363076972&aid=-1&id=735947307
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Get over your past. It left and won't come back!
Jihad Jorge ejaculated “8. Shut up!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't call for them kill more people. I said they would do it anyway and you know that. Its your fault. I don't need/have to/should apologise. I ask to stop insulting me that way, otherwise, you can't complaint of what I say.STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!”
Stop crying at what results from your own actions Jihad Jorge. And stop lying - it only makes things worse for you. YOU started insulting people - you were given the chance to stop and you carried on - all the time lying by saying that you do not insult people. You did post in support of Al Quada and I am not the only one, nor the first one, to bring you up on the deplorable comments that you made.
You have been given the opportunity to stop insulting people many times - mercopress posts can support that - and you refused and carried on. Then you cry when you get what you give thrown back at you.
Just look at what you posted in #3 Where you cry for it to stop. “what do I have to say for you to do it???? maybe to say “long life to IRA”???? Huh????”
Instead of simply asking what do you have to do to stop it you offer up a threat. A threat to support the IRA. That is the same as your support of the actions of Al Quada. You compound the problem for yourself and confirm what is said about you and your actions!!! You just do not see it.
Even now - when given the chance - as usual you refuse to acknowledge what you did or apologise for what you did. You asked what you had to do to stop it. You were given the answer. The rest is up to you. You can make it stop by withdrawing it and apologising. You will get a lot of respect if you apologise as it takes a big man to realise he is wrong and apologise. Come on Jorge - do the right thing and, as you have been asked to do before by me and others, debate without insulting.
And yet we maintain our AAA credit rating while Argentina struggles to maintain its B rating ....... something must be wrong there jorgy boy !
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jihad Jorge Ejaculated “14. you are so ignorant, aren't you. didn't you realize yet you are economically much worst than us at the moment???”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0See - you cannot stop insulting people can you.
Hoytred Wrote “And yet we maintain our AAA credit rating while Argentina struggles to maintain its B rating ....... something must be wrong there jorgy boy !”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly!!!!!
18. you still lying.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Bet: Find me where I explicitly said that I support the killings of people.
I only said that support the actions of those trying to liberate of your tirany. You created the problem of Al-Qaeda and IRA, you are the only ones to blame, not me. I didn't invent it and I have nothing to do with them, I'm not musulm nor catholic or jewesd. I don't f*cking care religions, I hate all of them. DID I MAKE MYSELF CLEAR?????????
You are no one to give me opportunities, who the hell do you think you are???
All of you started the insults saying we are brainwashed people. By saying that, you are treating us as stupids who cannot think by ourselves!!!!!!!!!!!
I can debate without insults. Take a look to the articles about economy.
The thing is CAN YOU???? given the fact that you are always talking about me. You don't even care the article, you just enter to talk about me.
STOP IT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
20. Where is the insult there???????? The word “ignorant” is an insult?????
Anyway, someone who talks about argentine law without knowing it is an ignorant, don't you think???
I several times posted links to proove what I say (not always I recognize), but you.....and hoytred..... refuse to read them.
I showed you where the UN says Malvinas is a “special case of colony” and you turnt a blind eye.
Think about it.
21. who gives those ratings????
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ahhhhh yeah the same that said everything was fine in USA till everything exploded.
If you believe it, that's OK. Cada loco con su tema.
Jihad Jorge I wash my hands of you. You will get what you deserve and in kind. You have shown that you are not a big man and you do not deserve any respect at all. And you also lie as often as you can - you cannot help yourself.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Grow up and recognise what you do. I am tired of trying to help you realise. As I say - you get back what you give.
And do not flatter yourself that I only come in here to respond to you. That is a lame attempt on your part to shift the blame and to try to silence, what you see as, a thorn in your side. It follows - given that you post a lot in these forums, maybe more than many - that people, including myself, will respond to you posts. Especially when you lie or post in support of terrorists. And I am not the only one who responds to your posts nor am I the only one who calls you up on the nonsense that you post or your insults.
24. no, no. You are wrong again and counting..............
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0you made nothing in 2 weeks or so about anything other than talk about me.
your are not helping me nor I need any kind of help from you.
I don't lie, I just put things you don't like to see.
and seriously, stop refering to me as jihad. I don't even know what that means despite of hearing it too much.
Now if you don't mind, I want to post my comments as usual, not refering to you.
Jihad Jorge Wrote a lot of lies in post #24 in a vain attempt to deflect from the recation he gets to nonsense he writes, the insults he makes, his support for terrorism and for his support of colonialism.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0And do yourself a favour - do not try to claim the moral high ground. I am not the only one calling you up on your stupidity - either change your ways or learn to live with what you get in response. Is that clear? What am I saying - of course it isn't clear to you. You are deaf to what is said about your posts and blind to what you do.
Jihad Jorge ejaculated “You are wrong again and counting..............
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0you made nothing in 2 weeks or so about anything other than talk about me.”
See - you cannot stop lying can you. The above is a lie from you. A vain attempt to shift the blame from yourself onto me. LOL
27. Would you stop please!!!!!!!!!!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0A question to all Argentineans who say that Argentina owns the Falklands. Why do you support what would be an act of colonialism in the 21st Century? The islanders have stated many many times that they do not want to be ruled by Argentina - so why do you not respect their wishes?
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You do not want the UK in the Falklands. OK. If you dropped your colonial claim to the Falklands then they could move to independence without fear, if they wished, and that would get the UK out of the Falklands. Problem solved for you.
Jihad Jorge Wrote “27. Would you stop please!!!!!!!!!!”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes - when you apologise and stop insulting people. Very simple. It is in your hands. It is what we all want - to be able to debate without insulting each other.
........“A question to all Argentineans who say that Argentina owns the Falklands. Why do you support what would be an act of colonialism in the 21st Century? The islanders have stated many many times that they do not want to be ruled by Argentina - so why do you not respect their wishes?”.........
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Can we go to your house to take a room and later claim self-determination????
-Would you respect our wishes to be in one of your rooms????
It is not about what they wish. UK stole those islands from Argentina. Did UK respect the wishes of the people who lived there in 1833??? I don't think so.
........“You do not want the UK in the Falklands. OK. If you dropped your colonial claim to the Falklands then they could move to independence without fear, if they wished, and that would get the UK out of the Falklands. Problem solved for you.”.........
- You are not understanding our claim.
30. Now I'm being blackmailed by an old bald man????
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are crazy if you think I'm gonna say “sorr....” I cannot say it!!!! LOL
At #32
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0What are you on about? old bald man?
I know that you cannot say sorry - you are not mature enough to say it.
What happen Mr Ball???
Apr 09th, 2010 - 09:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jihad Jorge wrote “Can we go to your house to take a room and later claim self-determination????”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well that would apply to what the colonists did in Argentina. They took the land from the indiginuous population and they then later claimed self-determination.
“It is not about what they wish. UK stole those islands from Argentina. Did UK respect the wishes of the people who lived there in 1833??? I don't think so.”
The UK did not steal the falklands from Argentina. 1833 was a police action by the UK to get back what Argentina was trying to steal from her. And yes we did respect the wishes of the people there. If they wanted to stay the could and many did - as Charles Darwins writing confirm.
As to not understanding your claim. No one understands why you continue to claim what is not yours nor do people understand why you deny to the people of the Islands that which you wanted yourself when the colonists in Argentina sought independence from Spain. No, we do not understand why it is that you deny the people of the Falklands what the UN grants them in international law - self determination.
Jihad Jorge Ejaculated “What happen Mr Ball???”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0?????????
........“The UK did not steal the falklands from Argentina. 1833 was a police action by the UK to get back what Argentina was trying to steal from her. And yes we did respect the wishes of the people there. If they wanted to stay the could and many did - as Charles Darwins writing confirm.”.......
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0- You know that is not true. You just repeat what others say here. You made no research aboit it. Besides, the people in Malvinas didn't want to be ruled by UK. You didn't respect their wishes. Stop lying!!!!
........“As to not understanding your claim. No one understands why you continue to claim what is not yours nor do people understand why you deny to the people of the Islands that which you wanted yourself when the colonists in Argentina sought independence from Spain. No, we do not understand why it is that you deny the people of the Falklands what the UN grants them in international law - self determination.”......
- Simple, they live in our land. If they want to be british, then go to britain. Nothing to do here.
Jorge wrote “- You know that is not true. You just repeat what others say here. You made no research aboit it. Besides, the people in Malvinas didn't want to be ruled by UK. You didn't respect their wishes. Stop lying!!!!”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am not lying and history shows that I am not. You are just in denial. And, actually, I have researched a lot about the issue. Why do you continue with the lies even though they fly in the face of facts?
Jorge wrote “- Simple, they live in our land. If they want to be british, then go to britain. Nothing to do here.”
They do not live on Argentinean land. They live on their own land and they have the right to live under who they wish. The thing is Jorge - if the islanders wanted to have the title transfered to Argentina then the UK would respect their wishes. It is not the UK who is causing any problems here. The islanders do not want to be under Argentina. And it is not a case of saying that they should go back to the UK. They were born in the islands not the UK. They have expressed their wishes. Remember - they have lived on the islands far longer than Argentineans have lived on the land that Argentina stole in its genocidal Conquest of the Desert.
Given that the UK respects their wishes - you have to ask yourself - why do they NOT want to be under Argentinean rule?
...“I am not lying and history shows that I am not. You are just in denial. And, actually, I have researched a lot about the issue. Why do you continue with the lies even though they fly in the face of facts?”...
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0- The only fact is that you couldn't get over your old times of imprealism.
You refuse to comply with UN mandates.
UK is so hypocrite to ask Iran and other countries to respect UN mandates when it disobey them all the time.
Of course, you have a veto power in the sucurity council, but that will end. Believe me, that will end.
...“They do not live on Argentinean land. They live on their own land and they have the right to live under who they wish. The thing is Jorge - if the islanders wanted to have the title transfered to Argentina then the UK would respect their wishes.”...
- Again, over and over again, this is not about what they wish. They are there due to piracy from UK. They must understand that that Argentina was governing rightfully the islands when a bunch of pirates invaded.
Islanders are not struggling like those in UK today, but they know very well that if they didn't have this problem with us, they would much better.
...“They were born in the islands not the UK. They have expressed their wishes. Remember - they have lived on the islands far longer than Argentineans have lived on the land that Argentina stole in its genocidal Conquest of the Desert.”...
- The first human being born in Malvinas was an argentine.
No matter how long they lived there and it has nothing to do with the conquest of the desert, that is not an excuse nor it gives you any right to do what you did.
...“Given that the UK respects their wishes - you have to ask yourself - why do they NOT want to be under Argentinean rule?”...
- UK only “respect” someone else wishes when it suits it.
We don't need to put our rights under the consideration of british crown subjects. That won't happen. One thing is for sure, we are here and they will have to deal with us for ever!!!!!
Jorge wrote “- The only fact is that you couldn't get over your old times of imprealism.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0We got over that a long time ago. Argentina hasn't given up on its part in European colonialism and are still trying to impose colonialism upon the Falklands in the 21st Century.
Jorge wrote “You refuse to comply with UN mandates.”
What UN 'Mandates' again what UN *mandates* ?
Jorge wrote “One thing is for sure, we are here and they will have to deal with us for ever!!!!!”
See - Argentine threats towards a peaceful Falklands and its people. Is it any wonder that they want NOTHING to do with you.
Chris UK - ........“The UK did not steal the falklands from Argentina. 1833 was a police action by the UK to get back what Argentina was trying to steal from her. And yes we did respect the wishes of the people there. If they wanted to stay the could and many did - as Charles Darwins writing confirm.”.......
Apr 09th, 2010 - 10:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - You know that is not true. You just repeat what others say here. You made no research aboit it. Besides, the people in Malvinas didn't want to be ruled by UK. You didn't respect their wishes. Stop lying!!!!
You are wrong Jorgy boy, Charles Darwin on the Beagle arrived just after the 'police action' so well described by Chris. He recorded what he found in his diary and those diaries are available on the internet. A contemporanous record of who was there, their racial types and countries of origin and even that the English man left in charge had been there 'for some years'.
Darwin - the father of evolutionary theory, is a pretty good witness to the lies in Argentine history.
Try - http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F10.2a&pageseq=163
“Besides, the people in Malvinas didn't want to be ruled by UK. You didn't respect their wishes. Stop lying!!!!”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually that is a lie Jorge, Vernet frequently asked for a permanent British garrison and expressed a preference for British sovereignty. Its this embarassing fact that caused the Peronists to concoct the myths surrounding El Gaucho Rivero. The murdering thugs who murdered in cold blood the 5 senior members of Vernet's settlement.
........“We got over that a long time ago. Argentina hasn't given up on its part in European colonialism and are still trying to impose colonialism upon the Falklands in the 21st Century.”.....
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0- We've never been an empire. That is you, Spain, Portugal, France, USA, Russia among others, never Argentina. History doesn't lie.
.......“What UN 'Mandates' again what UN *mandates* ?”....
- All the resolutions that call both countries to negotiate.
.......“See - Argentine threats towards a peaceful Falklands and its people. Is it any wonder that they want NOTHING to do with you.”......
- It is not a threat, it's the consequence of your stuborn attitude. There is no such a thing like a “peacefull falklands”. It's just the british piracy with their people implanted there a century and a half ago.
........“He recorded what he found in his diary and those diaries are available on the internet. A contemporanous record of who was there, their racial types and countries of origin and even that the English man left in charge had been there 'for some years'.”........
- you didn't rebutte what I said. People in Malvinas had wishes also when you invaded. You didn't respect them. The fact that they have remained there is irrelevant. If we had won the war in 1982, surely the mayority of islanders would have remained there. Your comment is irrelevant.
JustinKuntz wrote “Actually that is a lie Jorge, Vernet frequently asked for a permanent British garrison and expressed a preference for British sovereignty. Its this embarassing fact that caused the Peronists to concoct the myths surrounding El Gaucho Rivero. The murdering thugs who murdered in cold blood the 5 senior members of Vernet's settlement.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is indeed an inconvenient truth for Argentina. Vernet sought permission from Britain for his settlement. He did that because he knew who held legal title.
oh se hizo la luz.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 042 JustinKuntz, you are the first one on repeating the official history of UK.
People wanted to remain under Buenos Aires Rule. Gaucho Rivero movement didn't want to be under your rule and you didn't respect them. Our great Gaucho Rivero died Killing british in “vuelta de obligado” remember???? That story that took place in Uruguay that led to 1850 convention????
You always mention that treaty, but never what caused it!!!!
Again, your piracy against a weak country at the time.
That is an inconvenient truth for you. (in the past, because at present you have enough!!!).
.........“That is indeed an inconvenient truth for Argentina. Vernet sought permission from Britain for his settlement. He did that because he knew who held legal title.”.....
- For you Vernet was a lawyer or a historian???? Do you know what he knew???? LOOL Please!!!!
Vernet could have been doing whatever, but the fact is he was appointed governor under Buenos Aires Rule and he had people living there when you invaded.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is good news for Argentina, by finding oil in our undisputed territory with a British company involved in it will put pressure on the already failing small oil companies working in Malvinas.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0If it comes to pass that the small companies do find oil as well as the consortium in Argentina, the government can put pressure on BP to kick it out of the business in Argentina if they were to decide a purchase of Desire for example, thus making those companies not a good purchase... at least not an easy one.
If only a company working in Malvinas finds oil and no other, then the current scenario is maintained, which is not exactly good for business on any side.
Jorge - “ ... Vernet could have been doing whatever, but the fact is he was appointed governor under Buenos Aires Rule and he had people living there when you invaded....”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still missing the point jorgy boy -
1. Buenos Aries couldn't appoint Vernett 'Governor' because they didn'y own the islands and had no power, or presence, there.
2. Vernett had already sough British permission acknowledging the British title, and he didn't ask the Buenos Aries Government for any title
3. Yes, Vernett had people living on the islands ... all of them there with British permission. They went in the full knowledge that they were doing so under British title ... whether they liked that or not is irrelevant. And they were hardly settlers - merely 'employees'.
Map, BP is probably worth more than Argentina ... !
Ahhhhhh YPF should have never been sold. We need it now. This Menem was a SOB!!!!!! I hate him!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I forgot to add -
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 04. And their descendents are still there and want to remain British .....
48 1. Bullshit! we own the islands now and then. We claim them with no objetion by you in 1820.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 02. Buenos Aires gave him rights to control haunting of “lobos marinos” and whales.
3. Bullshit again, they were under Buenos Aires juridistion, that's why Rivero started the killing.
What is irrelevant is the wishes of islanders right now and their so-called “self-determination”.
4. bullshit!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorgy boy, a pirate claimed the islands for you in 1820 and he wasn't important enough to register on the political landscape .... indeed, even Argentina was not important enough till 1825. In other words Jewetts claim neither had, nor has, any meaning.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0As I said Buenos Aries hadn't the right to give anyone anything in respect of British property.
Rivero was upset about money, not sovereignty ..... there we go jorgy boy, back to business again!
And I'm pretty sure they want to remain British, I'm certain someone asked them ... recently :-)
Does Talib actually want to go and live in the Falklands? It appears to be his lifelong obsession. It's cold, windy barren and without a single tree. What is the attraction?
Apr 09th, 2010 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even if the Falklands ever did become Argentine I can't imagine the Argentines flocking there to live.
.......“What UN 'Mandates' again what UN *mandates* ?”....
Apr 09th, 2010 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- All the resolutions that call both countries to negotiate.
Jorge - a UN resolution is not a UN mandate. They are not the same thing.
“Vernet could have been doing whatever, but the fact is he was appointed governor under Buenos Aires Rule and he had people living there when you invaded.”
You can't appoint a governer to land you do not own. Great Britain made a formal complaint over this action.
“Bullshit! we own the islands now and then. We claim them with no objetion by you in 1820.”
We didn't recognise Argentina as an indendant country until 1825 so we couldn't object as to do so would be recognising your independance from Spain. Also as we still claimed sovereignty of the islands in 1820 and had done so since 1690 when we first landed on the islands and claimed sovereignty then when your privateer planted your flag all he was doing was claiming sovereignty of something already owned by someone else... in other words pivacy.
Ah Jorge, the myth of the gallant “El Gaucho” Rivero, the greatest Argentine patriot laying down his life at the Battle of Vuelte de Obligado.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Except there is no evidence whatsoever it actually happened, it was simply made up. No one knows what happened to Rivero, he was returned to South America via Montevideo and then no one knows what happened to him.
What caused the Battle of Vuelte de Obligado? Well Argentine merchants in Buenos Aires didn't like the fact that the British and French were sailing upstream to sell goods to Paraguay cheaper than they could produce, so the BA Government attempted to introduce tariffs to favour Argentine goods and blocked access to Paraguay to impose them.
At the Battle of Vuelte de Obligado the combined British and French fleet slaughtered the Argentines blockading the rivers but it was so costly they decided to negotiate. Despite having their arses handed to them, this is claimed as a great victory.
But what was interesting in that signing the treaty following the brief skirmishes, the British and Argentines decided to settle their existing differences....and thus the 1850 Convention of Settlement was born. In which of course “existing differences” are settled to create a lasting and permanent peace. Until the Argentines changed their minds and resurrected the dispute 35 years later, I'm sure this is co-incidental but this occurs exactly at the same time as the great expansion of Argentina into Patagonia and following the seizure of large parts of Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance, both events accompanied by the worst excesses of genocidal behaviour. So at the time the claim was resurrected, Argentina was in the middle of acquiring territory with aggressive wars of conquest.
As I understand it the resurrected claim actually only consisted of one letter to London, and then the matter was dropped again for 50 odd years ?
Apr 09th, 2010 - 01:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From Wikipedia - “The Argentine National Academy of History considered in 1966 that Rivero and his followers were common criminals driven by no patriotic feeling, and Argentine historian Laurio H. Destéfani wrote in his 1982 book on the history of the Falkland Islands dispute:
Apr 09th, 2010 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ This is the true story of what happened proof of which is stated in 42 documents published by the National Academy of History. Attempts have been made to create a legend about courageous gauchos who attacked and defeated the British, but this is just imagination. The truth as recorded in those documents does not authorize the creation of myths or legends.”
Another example of Argentine history being twisted to suit the politics, but then I suppose such was the norm rather than the exception. It is quite amazing that the lies can continue when there are now so many alternative sources than ones own Government.
The article goes on to state - “The initial British plans for the Falklands were based upon the perpetuation of Vernet's settlement, backed by an annual visit by a warship. This being the standard practise of maintaining a settlement with the minimum of expense. There was no British presence in the islands at the time of the Port Louis murders. A direct result of the Port Louis murders was the installation of a permanent British Government presence, Lt Henry Smith became the first British resident in January 1834. Subsequently, the permanent presence led to the decision in 1841 to form a permanent colony rather than a minor naval outpost.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So perhaps Argentina should not laud Antonio Rivero, but blame him for the current situation ... funny old world :-)
.........“What caused the Battle of Vuelte de Obligado? Well Argentine merchants in Buenos Aires didn't like the fact that the British and French were sailing upstream to sell goods to Paraguay cheaper than they could produce, so the BA Government attempted to introduce tariffs to favour Argentine goods and blocked access to Paraguay to impose them.”.........
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Bullshit!!!!
You wanted to control our rivers. We just stopped that. You always twisting history.
........“At the Battle of Vuelte de Obligado the combined British and French fleet slaughtered the Argentines blockading the rivers but it was so costly they decided to negotiate. Despite having their arses handed to them, this is claimed as a great victory.”......
- You could passed to Paraguay, but at the return we kicked your ass!!!! That's the truth. You were all sick and we burnt 2 of your ships. You had no choice other than negotiate.
.......“But what was interesting in that signing the treaty following the brief skirmishes, the British and Argentines decided to settle their existing differences....and thus the 1850 Convention of Settlement was born. In which of course “existing differences” are settled to create a lasting and permanent peace. Until the Argentines changed their minds and resurrected the dispute 35 years later, I'm sure this is co-incidental but this occurs exactly at the same time as the great expansion of Argentina into Patagonia and following the seizure of large parts of Paraguay in the War of the Triple Alliance, both events accompanied by the worst excesses of genocidal behaviour.”.......
- Differences regarding the problem you created in 1850.
- The war of the triple alliance. Missing something Justin???
Your country encouraged that war and you are wrong (as usual) blaming Argentina for that. Paraguay invaded our terretory, otherwise Argentina woudn't have intervened. That war was started between Brasil and Paraguay. You always conveniently omiting facts!!!!!!!
jorge “Differences regarding the problem you created in 1850.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is not stipulated in the 1850 treaty. It stipulates “putting an end to existing differences” Or are you saying that Argentina didn't have an issue with the fact Great Britain was in possession of the Falklands at the time, that is wasn't a difference between the two nations? If so why does Argentina have an issue now?
If Argentina wanted to protect it's claim to the Falklands in the 1850 treaty it should have had an article written into the treaty protecting it's claim... It didn't. Instead it signed a treaty which settled the existing differences between the two nations which is why it wasn't mentioned again for 90 years.
Jorge wrote - All the resolutions that call both countries to negotiate.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, by your own admission, there are NO UN Mandates as you intially claimed.
Jorge wrote - It is not a threat, it's the consequence of your stuborn attitude. There is no such a thing like a “peacefull falklands”. It's just the british piracy with their people implanted there a century and a half ago.
It is a threat and there was NO British Piracy - in fact, as has been shown by others posting today, the only attempt at piracy was conducted by Argentina. As to being implanted - WRONG - also though, you took Patagonia in the 1870's - so all the Argentines there now were implanted 140 years ago. I told you Jorge - it is wrong of you to try to claim the moral high ground as you are not fit to hold it!
Jorge - in your post #60. Why do you always say Bullshit!!! when history shows that you are wrong. You are in denial.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 058 Hoytred, do you want I start quoting british OFFICIALS doubting about your rights over Malvinas????
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 059 Hoytred, lol, you keep parroting the propaganda of your government.
55 LegionNi, Are joking with me?????????
You are playing a game of words here???
You don't respect UN mandates that call both countries to negotiate. You are not respecting it. End of story!
And your unreal claim was buried in several ways. 1771 agreement with Spain. 1790 with Nootka Sound Convention and prescription in favor of Spain by leaving the islands in 1775 and not returning (with an invasion) till 1833. Your claim was totally out!!!!!!!! You had no rights over Malvinas!!!! You never had them. French were the first colonizers and they recognize that land was under spanish juridisction. From anywhere you see it, you had no rights in 1833 when you invaded. Stop inventing!!!!!!
We were in the islands when you invaded, you knew we claimed them in 1820 and in 1825 you didn't make any reservation to that. you recognized our sovereignty there, as you did it, no need to mention the sovereignty issue in 1850 convention that was signed only for ending the problem you created in Río de La Plata.
54 Idlehands, talib my ass!!!! idiot.
I don't have any problem to live there. I live in Patagonia near the coast and it is windy and cold here. besides we don't have many tress. No problem
Jorge - The war of the triple alliance. Missing something Justin???
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your country encouraged that war and you are wrong (as usual) blaming Argentina for that. Paraguay invaded our terretory, otherwise Argentina woudn't have intervened. That war was started between Brasil and Paraguay. You always conveniently omiting facts!!!!!!!
The start of the war has been widely attributed to causes as varied as the after-effects of colonialism in Latin America, the struggle for physical power over the strategic Río de la Plata region, Brazilian and Argentine meddling in internal Uruguayan politics, British economic interests in the region, and the expansionist ambitions of Paraguayan president Francisco Solano López. Paraguay had had boundary disputes and tariff issues with Argentina and Brazil for many years.
From Wikipedia.
So out of all the varied reasons for that war you lay the blame at the feet of Great Britain only.
Looks to me like you guilty of omitting a few facts yourself jorge.
Jorge - will you stop denying historical fact. It does your cause no good at all. You are the one inventing things. The historical facts quoted are verifiable - unlike yours. We did have rights to the islands in 1833 and that is why we conducted the police action to stop Vernet going against the terms he had agreed with us.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 061 LegionNi, it was in the context I've already mentioned and no need to mention the sovereignty issue since you'd already recognized our rights there in 1825. We had/have just an illegal occipation that should have been resolved more than 100 years ago!!!!! No more discussion about that!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0......“So, by your own admission, there are NO UN Mandates as you intially claimed.”......
- HEY!!!!!!! You should respect resolutions anyway!!!!! what are you talking about?
.......“It is a threat and there was NO British Piracy - in fact, as has been shown by others posting today, the only attempt at piracy was conducted by Argentina.”........
- Errrrrrr... an invation of someone else terretory......mmmmm I thought that was Piracy. Maybe my dictionary is wrong! :-)
........“As to being implanted - WRONG - also though, you took Patagonia in the 1870's - so all the Argentines there now were implanted 140 years ago.”.......
- Tell me something, Is there a complaint or a claim against Argentina regarding sovereignty of Patagonia???? NOT!!!!!!
UN rules the world or at least should (urgently cutting your veto power) and UN calls both countries to negotiate, very simple, and countries should respect that. So, you can't ask for Iran to stop its nuclear plans argumenting UN resolutions when you are the one who do not respect them!!!!
In my country that is called HYPOCRESY!!!!
........“I told you Jorge - it is wrong of you to try to claim the moral high ground as you are not fit to hold it!”.........
- Actually, any country with the exception of USA, Spain, Portugal, France, Russia and a few others, can claim the moral high ground since what you did was tremendous, nothing compares to you!!!
......“Jorge - in your post #60. Why do you always say Bullshit!!! when history shows that you are wrong. You are in denial.”......
- History doesn't show I'm wrong. History shows that you were involved in many of South American Tragedies and that's something you were not told in school.
“Bullshit!!!!”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Such intelligent comments
“You wanted to control our rivers. We just stopped that. You always twisting history.”
No we didn't want to control your rivers, we wished to maintain right of free passage that had been enjoyed for some time to trade with a land locked country. Argentina sought to impose tariffs and control the rivers to restrict trade.
“You could passed to Paraguay, but at the return we kicked your ass”
Argentina suffered major losses but the British and French basically decided it wasn't worth the arse ache. This is your “great victory”.
The War of the Triple Alliance, Argentine and Paraguayan revisionist historians try to blame the British Empire, who was never a combatant. The reality is in fact related to the aggressive polices pursued by the Paraguayan Caudillo Solano López. Yes Paraguay did invade Argentina but then Argentina pursued the war with some zeal with the aim of gaining Paraguayan territory - which is now part of Argentina.
And speaking of ignoring facts - you continuously ignore the fact that Argentina signed a treaty with the British settling its differences. Argentina abandoned its claim in 1850. Indeed as Legion quite astutely ask why did Argentina sign a treaty which settled the existing differences between the two nations and why it wasn't mentioned again for 90 years.
The silence in answer to that question is deafening
1790 - the treaty which doesn't apply to the islands is mentioned in response to a treaty from 1850. And various other ramblings but never an answer.
Jorge - “ ...Hoytred, do you want I start quoting british OFFICIALS doubting about your rights over Malvinas???? ... ”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes please .............
To be honest “Talib” isn't a great nickname. “The Duracell Bunny” would be much more apt.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 065 LegionNi, It is not that I wanted to omit those things which I already know. I wanted to recall that the british were almost always present in the problems of the region.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0........“Jorge - will you stop denying historical fact. It does your cause no good at all. You are the one inventing things. The historical facts quoted are verifiable - unlike yours. We did have rights to the islands in 1833 and that is why we conducted the police action to stop Vernet going against the terms he had agreed with us.”........
- Did you bother yourself to read let's say Nootka Sound Convention?????
You had no rights there. Accept it!!!!
You've already accepted your acts of piracy in other issues, why refusing to do it with this??? this one was just one of many of those!
Jorge “55 LegionNi, Are joking with me?????????
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are playing a game of words here???
You don't respect UN mandates that call both countries to negotiate. You are not respecting it. End of story!”
Jorge - seriously a UN Resolution is not the same thing as a UN Mandate. Look it up yourself if you do not believe me.
“And your unreal claim was buried in several ways. 1771 agreement with Spain. 1790 with Nootka Sound Convention and prescription in favor of Spain by leaving the islands in 1775”
Where does it say in Nootka that we gave up sovereignty of the Falklands. It doesn't Jorge because we didn't.
“You had no rights over Malvinas!!!! You never had them. French were the first colonizers and they recognize that land was under spanish juridisction.”
We claimed sovereignty of the islands in 1690 jorge before the French had a settlement there. Under your own twisted logic the French settlement was therefore illegal. The French couldn't hand sovereignty to Spain because the French didn't have an undisputed claim. Wether France recognised Spainish sovereignty is irrelevant as we had never recognised French sovereignty. It wasn't theirs to give.
“We were in the islands when you invaded, you knew we claimed them in 1820 and in 1825 you didn't make any reservation to that.”
We didn't invade we took back what you were trying to steal. The claim in 1820 wasn't official as your were not a recognised independant country by us in 1820.
The settlement in 1825 was a private renture and Vernet has asked our permission so why would we object.
As soon as Argentina appointed a governer, an official act since we then recognised you we made official objection. When you ingored us we rightfully reasserted our sovereignty.
You didn't protect you claim in the 1850 convention. All difference were settled. End of Story. Thats probably why your government didn't mention it for another 90 years.
65 LegionNi, It is not that I wanted to omit those things which I already know. I wanted to recall that the british were almost always present in the problems of the region.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0........“Jorge - will you stop denying historical fact. It does your cause no good at all. You are the one inventing things. The historical facts quoted are verifiable - unlike yours. We did have rights to the islands in 1833 and that is why we conducted the police action to stop Vernet going against the terms he had agreed with us.”........
- Did you bother yourself to read let's say Nootka Sound Convention?????
You had no rights there. Accept it!!!!
You've already accepted your acts of piracy in other issues, why refusing to do it with this??? this one was just one of many of those!
Jorge - ” ... And your unreal claim was buried in several ways. 1771 agreement with Spain. 1790 with Nootka Sound Convention and prescription in favor of Spain by leaving the islands in 1775 and not returning (with an invasion) till 1833. Your claim was totally out!!!!!!!! You had no rights over Malvinas!!!! You never had them. French were the first colonizers and they recognize that land was under spanish juridisction. From anywhere you see it, you had no rights in 1833 when you invaded. Stop inventing!!!!!!
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We were in the islands when you invaded, you knew we claimed them in 1820 and in 1825 you didn't make any reservation to that. you recognized our sovereignty there, as you did it, no need to mention the sovereignty issue in 1850 convention that was signed only for ending the problem you created in Río de La Plata ... ”
1. The 1771 agreement with Spain was that Spain back down, decry the actions of Buenos Aries and return everything taken. The Spanish complied and were restricted to Puerto Soledad ever after.
2. The Nootka Sound Convention did not concern the Falkland Islands which could not be considered 'adjacent' to the South American mainland.
3. The garrison left in 1776 but the islands (and the claim) were continued by whalers and sealers, as well as the required marks (plaque tec) being left behind. Jewett found 50 ships at anchor when he arrived in 1820.
4. Argentina did not exist in 1820 .... at least not in the eyes of the only two nations who mattered, Britain and Spain.
5. The 1850 Convention solved 'all matters' .... Argentina gave up its claim ... easily proven by its subsequent actions.
6. In 1833 Britain ejected trespassing argentine troops .... we've had the islands since 1765 (France never made any claim) ......
.......... and we'll keep ejecting them for as long as it takes for Argentina to admit its spurious version of history and acknowledge the islander's right to self determination ! Get used to it !!
Jorge - “65 LegionNi, It is not that I wanted to omit those things which I already know. I wanted to recall that the british were almost always present in the problems of the region.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As were Argentina by the looks of it lol.
#70 Idlehands ... :-)
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0........“No we didn't want to control your rivers, we wished to maintain right of free passage that had been enjoyed for some time to trade with a land locked country. Argentina sought to impose tariffs and control the rivers to restrict trade.”......
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- When did you win that right?????? Did Argentina give it to you????? NOT
Just because you were doing it due to your arrogant power, it doesn't mean it was a RIGHT you had.
.........“Argentina suffered major losses but the British and French basically decided it wasn't worth the arse ache. This is your “great victory”.”.......
- Arrogant!!! We suffered much more losses like in Malvinas, but still kicked your ass! you did not decide it. You had no chice!!!!!!!!!!! You couldn't afford another adventure like that!
........“The War of the Triple Alliance, Argentine and Paraguayan revisionist historians try to blame the British Empire, who was never a combatant. The reality is in fact related to the aggressive polices pursued by the Paraguayan Caudillo Solano López. Yes Paraguay did invade Argentina but then Argentina pursued the war with some zeal with the aim of gaining Paraguayan territory - which is now part of Argentina.”......
- Be carefull, you are collapsing Wikipedia Justin! LOL
You didn't rebutte what I said!
.......“And speaking of ignoring facts - you continuously ignore the fact that Argentina signed a treaty with the British settling its differences. Argentina abandoned its claim in 1850.”.......
- No.You abandoned it first in 1825. No need to make mention of a claim in 1850. Another path!!!
......“Indeed as Legion quite astutely ask why did Argentina sign a treaty which settled the existing differences between the two nations and why it wasn't mentioned again for 90 years.”......
- Astutely???? Really??? I told you many times, 1850 convention only regards to 1850 events. Mentioned or not, did Argentina sign a paper recognizing your sovereignty there???? NOT Never did/will do!!!
Jorge wrote - HEY!!!!!!! You should respect resolutions anyway!!!!! what are you talking about?
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But not mandates as you claimed. Anyway - if we did talk would you be ready to give up your claim? It is what you are asking of us. Would you be ready to let the Islanders have the last say in way of a referendum? The UN, after all, says that their right to self determination is paramount. The thing is - and this is the tricky one - the islanders have expressed their right to self-determination already. They do not want us to discuss giving them away to you.
Jorge wrote ”- Errrrrrr... an invation of someone else terretory......mmmmm I thought that was Piracy. Maybe my dictionary is wrong! :-)“
Well, that isn't the exact definition but if it was that would make Argentina guilty of piracy. Even if we forget that Argentina is the result of someone taking someone elses territory -You invaded Patagonia - it wasn't your territory. And the Falklands were not Argentine - so you actually invaded someone else territory.
Jorge wrote ”- Tell me something, Is there a complaint or a claim against Argentina regarding sovereignty of Patagonia???? NOT!!!!!!“
Well of course there isn't - you KILLED them all.
Jorge wrote ”UN rules the world“
No it doesn't - countries are soveriegn
Jorge wrote ”UN calls both countries to negotiate, very simple, and countries should respect that.“
Jorge wrote ”- Actually, any country with the exception of USA, Spain, Portugal, France, Russia and a few others, can claim the moral high ground since what you did was tremendous, nothing compares to you!!!“
But not Argentina as you are the product of the very acts of one of the countries you listed above. Plus what you did after independence. So you cannot claim the moral high ground - as I stated and as you have now confirmed.
Jorge wrote ”History doesn't show I'm wrong. History shows that you were involved in many of South American Tragedies and that's something you were not told in school.”
Wro
Jorge wrote “History doesn't show I'm wrong. History shows that you were involved in many of South American Tragedies and that's something you were not told in school.”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong, wrong, wrong.We are taught history in school. I well remember being told of what the UK had done that was wrong as well as what it did that was right. There is no shortage of debate in the UK about our past. We pay out a lot in compensation - in overseas aid to former colonies - and well we should. When will Argentina, and Spain as it rarely does either, face up to what it did in the past?
A few notes on 1771 again jorgy boy .... sorry if I'm repeating myself :-)
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 01770 – Hunt returns to Britain leaving Captain Farmer in command of the garrison. (June) Hunt brings the first message of Spanish claims to the government. (4th) 5 frigates, 1600 men, 27 cannon, 4 mortars and 200 bombs under the command of Madariaga arrive from Buenos Aries to force the British to leave. (10th) A few shots are exchanged and the outnumbered British commander capitulates. (Aug) Madrid receives notice of the action. (Oct) Britain confirms the information and prepares for war. Negotiations between the British and Spanish courts commence.
1771 - 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 th
Jorge wrote “- Did you bother yourself to read let's say Nootka Sound Convention?????You had no rights there. Accept it!!!!”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That treaty does not give up UK rights to the Islands and well you know it!
Jorge wrote “You've already accepted your acts of piracy in other issues, why refusing to do it with this??? this one was just one of many of those!”
The UK has indeed owned up to much it did wrong. When will Spain/Argentina own up to what it did wrong? We don't give up on the Falklands because we did not do anything wrong. It is Argentina who is in the wrong here. ARgentina is the agressor, the pirate if you will.
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 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”. The 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 maintains its settlement at Puerto Soledad, administered by Viceroyalty of the River Plate in Buenos Aries.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I've tried to indicate sources just so I don't get accused of trotting out Government propaganda ...........
Well Hoytred - I would say game,set and match to the UK. Well researched sir.
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.......“The silence in answer to that question is deafening ”....
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- Common, you are no one to decide if my answers are deafening or not”........
1790 treaty perfectly applies to Malvinas case and it shows you had no rights, that's why you say it doens't apply. :-)
69 Hoytred, well wait a couple of hours. Its luch time now.
72 LegionNi, read the articles 4, 5 and 6. I won¡t make the hard work.
French stablished there first!!!!!
wheter the government mention it or not is not your problem, that is not “a drop” of our claim, where is it written??? NONSENSE!!!
70 Idlehands, are you so stupid or what???
74 Hoytred
1. Spain restablished Port Egmont, not Malvinas and you had to live, HEY GUESS WHAT! that's why you left!!!!
2. Crap!!!!!! Malvinas ARE adjacent islands.
3. LOL Whalers makes claims now???
4. If Malvinas were yours, you could have done something about the claim, Jewett got there and claimed them, how could you permit that????
5. Argentina didn't give up anything, you pirate and you can't claim you have proof of that!. That's ridiculous!!!!!!
6. Doesn't matter, France was there first. To whom you made the claim??? Useless!!!! They had some rights there and recognized or cede if you like to Spain.
.........“and we'll keep ejecting them for as long as it takes for Argentina to admit its spurious version of history and acknowledge the islander's right to self determination ! Get used to it !!”.......
- No. your country will not be in position to say anything in the near future. Your country will have to respect international law like it or not, peacefully or by force (international).
Self-what????? No, no. That doesn't exist here. They want to be british??? Fine, go to britain!!!
75 LegionNi, you know nothing man!!!!
OK. Its lunch time, I wasted too much time with pirates.
See you! later or tomorrow!!!!
Jorge (your teacher) LOL
“70 Idlehands, are you so stupid or what???”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No - just highly bemused by your endless rants.
All this historical “debating” (for want of a better word) is pointless. The UN clearly states that self determination is paramount - which is why you try and weasel an argument to deny the islanders that right.
As I said - you're the Duracell Bunny - but carry on.
Jihad Jorge wrote ”No. your country will not be in position to say anything in the near future. Your country will have to respect international law like it or not, peacefully or by force (international).”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Forced to do what? The UN haven't said that the UK has to give the Falklands to Argentina. Remember what the international community said when you last used force with regard to the Falklands? Remember how that worked out for you?
The UK respects international law. Can the same be said of ARgentina with regard to its actions over the Falklands?
A very simple question
Apr 09th, 2010 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1850 Convention of Settlement.
Signatories: UK & Argentina
Settles existing differences, to create perfect peace.
Jorge, please explain how the Falklands remains an Argentine claim, when Argentina signs a treaty that settles existing differences?
Another question:
Apr 09th, 2010 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/04/02/mrs-kirchner-blasts-un-double-standards-on-falklands-resolutions
UN Double Standards?
Argentina claims it has UN support....
“Argentina claims it has UN support....”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which we all know is a lie!!!!!
Justin said: “Jorge, please explain how the Falklands remains an Argentine claim, when Argentina signs a treaty that settles existing differences?”
Apr 09th, 2010 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly Jorge, and please don't try to wriggle out and divert attention with cock and bull like “we need to know why the treaty was signed” and “we should look at the context”.
Before the treaty: Messages to congress. After the treaty: No messages to congress (for 91 years). Argentina dropped it's claim in 1850. Sorry, Jorgebobo. It's a fact.
Anyone notice that whenever you ask an awkward question there is silence, the rest of the time you point out relevant facts, which are simply dismissed.
Apr 10th, 2010 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we stick with the awkward questiosn in the future.
Arquero, yes and we're also proud of you Turks, fighting alongside us in Afghanistan. I bet Jorgebobo, who always brings Afghanistan is so ignorant he did not realise that...
Apr 10th, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well you go to Paris for a couple of days and come back to the same old exchanges here. Jihad Jorge the Talib continues to be a muppet and is the only Argentine who posts his twisted and inneffective opinions here. I take it he still hasen't said sorry for shouting his support for Al-Qaeda? I thought he may become a man and admit he made a bad error of judgement! BTW it looks like BP may be drilling in both Aregentine and Falklands waters in the future. Even the Argentine leadership are not stupied to kick BP out as they have options on so many riga etc. When Christina gets the boot the new leadership will be much less jingoistic and we will see that Argentina follows the $. BTW, I went to Disneyland and saw some real Pirates, they didn't sound like they came from the Falklands though, Arrrghhh me hartys!
Apr 10th, 2010 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0having problems getting on here .. keep getting kicked out ??? Someone doesn't like the truth maybe ?? Trying a change of name !
Apr 11th, 2010 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0hello .. something's been fixed maybe .....
Apr 11th, 2010 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jorge - ” .. 1. Spain restablished Port Egmont, not Malvinas and you had to live, HEY GUESS WHAT! that's why you left!!!!
Apr 11th, 2010 - 05:32 am - Link - Report abuse 02. Crap!!!!!! Malvinas ARE adjacent islands.
3. LOL Whalers makes claims now???
4. If Malvinas were yours, you could have done something about the claim, Jewett got there and claimed them, how could you permit that????
5. Argentina didn't give up anything, you pirate and you can't claim you have proof of that!. That's ridiculous!!!!!!
6. Doesn't matter, France was there first. To whom you made the claim??? Useless!!!! They had some rights there and recognized or cede if you like to Spain.
.........“and we'll keep ejecting them for as long as it takes for Argentina to admit its spurious version of history and acknowledge the islander's right to self determination ! Get used to it !!”.......
- No. your country will not be in position to say anything in the near future. Your country will have to respect international law like it or not, peacefully or by force (international).
Self-what????? No, no. That doesn't exist here. They want to be british??? Fine, go to britain!!!
Not many references/proof there then jorgy boy. So here we go again -
1. NO, Spain had to accept a humbling climbdown that the paperwork suggests was hushed up in Spain. A climbdown for Spain meant a vistory for Britain, and which victor is going to accepted restrictions from the defeated? Doesn't make sense, illogical ..... argument defeated too.
2. I doubt that in 1790 Paris would have been considered adjacent to London? And yet the Falkland Islands are a lot further away from the South American mainland than Paris is from London. Illogical ... again!
3. If pirates can make claims, then whalers can maintain the already existing one of their nation. The point is that the British did not leave, but kept coming back. It doesn't take soldiers to reinforce a claim otherwise you would not be able to argue that Vernett was acting on Jewett's claim.
4. They were ours and we did do so
something the moment an official act of Buenos Aries was reported. Jewett was merely a wayward pirate with no credibility, and who would the British have complained to anyway? Spain?
Apr 11th, 2010 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 05. The evidence suggests that Argentina did indeed give up its claim after 1850.
6. France never made any formal claim, or certainly none that's ever been found. It was a business venture after all.
We are already respecting international law and our obligations to the UN Charters regarding the rights to self-determination of all people. The islanders can be British if they wish and they can be so in the Falkland Islands.
Apparently Merco press had a technical problem over the weekend which stopped many people getting through. Hopefully its been sorted now.
Apr 12th, 2010 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Americans are te enemy of Brits ?
Apr 12th, 2010 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1978680,00.html/
article TIME / Apr19-2010
Apr 12th, 2010 - 06:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0##Defense of the Realm : Britain's Armed Force Crisis##
by Catherine Mayer
www.time.com/time/world/article/0.8599.1978680.00.html/
Apr 12th, 2010 - 06:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0see pictures of British soldier in Afghanistan
no:9 picture !!!! orgasmic war by massaging ?
J.A #####
Apr 12th, 2010 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0true some Türk soldiers with you in Afganistan but by symbolic counts and at the back secure sides , not as combat unit !!!!
but don't forget that we are not alongside you in Irak !!!!
please read TIME's article ( at the right side No:7 most Popular Articles
of the TIME's web site )and see the pictures carefully ! #####
J.A #####
Apr 12th, 2010 - 07:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't agree with you about Jorge !!
he is very swift ,smart, informed and guerrero ...
we Turks are fond of like these personalities ###
TIME article “” defense of realm : Britain's armed force crisis “”
Apr 12th, 2010 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0British soldiers in Afganistan..No:9 picture !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
really ..it seems that Brits soldiers have discipline problems..
what a bra marks..i think that Miami beachs more suitable places
more than Afganistan for this kind of operations ..!!
A massage therapist giving a massage is a discipline problem? Arquero, our Turkish ally, and gdr jumping to a bit of a conclusion I think...
Apr 12th, 2010 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J.A.R !! please look at “”No : 9 “” pictures again carefully ! don't peep !
Apr 12th, 2010 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0her skin has “” bra mark “” ,means that she walks around just by her bra
in the military units !! this is absolutely “” discipline problem “” !!
Oh Jorgie boy... You are so easy! Sometimes i speculate, if you are paid by the british.....
Apr 12th, 2010 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Example:
“Simply, they live in our land. If they want to be spanish go to Spain . Nothing to do here!”
Now the one billion dollar question comes!!
The above mentioned question, was that asked to an Falkland Islander or a Mapuche ??
I admit , i have changed nationality and nation names, but i have i very small hope you have a chance to understand or.... No forget it!
Regards from a scandinavian.
Give me a break gdr. The only conclusion you can draw from the “bra mark” is that she wears a bra.
Apr 13th, 2010 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think the only conclusion you can draw from gdr's remark is that he has never had a girl friend.
Apr 13th, 2010 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0J.A !!
Apr 13th, 2010 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can't accept that a serious Army has any female soldiers !
my believed principle is there never be disciplines with women !
the armies and wars are not sport areas !
what therapist !? the beating (punishment) would ensures
more and better therapy !.look at the pictures : sunglasses..magazines..
walk-mans...will we send them Channel Parfumes !???
Justin !!
Apr 13th, 2010 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0your remark is a little bit provocative !?
I hate underwears on my girlfriend !.notably red,white colours !
necklaces ,earrings and bracelets are mostly incendiary to me !!
once ,while in university i had a mailing Brits girlfriend (Nottingham)!
I can see the Argies have lost the plot again ... but just for the record ... our female soldiers, with or without bra's, could kick the sh#t out of the Argy army anytime they feel like a little trespassing again !
Apr 13th, 2010 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No problem :-)
gdr hates his “girlfriend” wearing underwear...then buy a puncture repair kit.
Apr 13th, 2010 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Seriously do Argentine women put up with this sexist crap?
gdr ### cruel commander !
Apr 13th, 2010 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all soldiers would run away from your hard disciplined military unit...
even in our Turkish Army there are no discipline this much(no women).
but you are right in principle !!!! ###
gdr ###
Apr 13th, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you think like Pizarro , Bolivar , Cortes .....
but all are conquerors not merely soldiers ...
today's states are all National States and their
weaponised employees ..###
gdr 110: “her skin has “” bra mark “” ,means that she walks around just by her bra
Apr 14th, 2010 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0in the military units !! this is absolutely “” discipline problem “” !!
Of course theres a fucking bra mark you twad, it tends to happen when you have a tight strap circumnavigating your chest, it doesn't mean that the entire cadre of female soldiers is walking around camp Bastion ”tits oot”.
It would seem gdr with your fascination with this 1/4 unclothed piece of army totty that are yet to reach the most coverted stage after pulling a girl that most adolescent's dream of reaching: actually getting to see their objective of desires mammary glands (although in Jorges case a goat or some other 4 legged creature) that you haven't actually attained this stage yet?
I'm sure you'll get there in the end old son though, although I don't see much hope in the short term with the word “Nottingham” involved.
dear Rhaurie : i talk about in general !
Apr 14th, 2010 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0human natue !!!!!!!!!
let's imagine : yu are a commodity expert broker ..in your business yu have a female peer who likes Victoria Beckham wearing bra-less
pink...purple.. silk blouses ..by long earrings..even if she doesn't have
a sound to sing ...etc..etc...
you are dealing which one mostly !?? commodity prices or her !??
in slangy meanings :
nurse = deal with ( concern oneself) !!!!!!!!!
her skin has “” bra mark “” ,means that she walks around just by her bra
Apr 14th, 2010 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0in the military units !! this is absolutely “” discipline problem “” !!
No, the mark is not due to sun tanning, it's due to constriction leaving a reddish mark on the skin.
Rhaurie !! your silent is just reply which i thought !
Apr 15th, 2010 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0certainly you should prefer your female peer instead of com.prices !!
human nature ! rule of nature !
I'm back pirates.
Apr 16th, 2010 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't have much time to answer all the crap here, just this:
1850 convention has nothing to do with the claim of Malvinas. The reestablishment of peace and friendship was about the conflict in Río Paraná. That treaty clearly states that! No more discussion about that.
Let's approach this sensibly. The Falkland Islands were named, claimed and settled by Britain before Argentina, as such, existed.
Apr 16th, 2010 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the basis of the Continental Shelf, Argentina belongs to Britain. So all the descendents of all those Spanish and Italian territory thieves can just return to where there ancestors came from.
See, we can all re-write history with appropriate emphasis if we want to. Thing is, Britain has more right than most.
And jorge, please don't call British territory by your pie-in-the-sky names. If you'd ever fought the UK and won, or even drawn, you might have some excuse. You haven't. You had your ass kicked. On the basis of certain posts here, I reckon UK forces are willing to do it again.
Now, the last time, the UK was gentle. Next time it could be 4 or 5 squadrons of Typhoons, a couple of hunter-killer submarines and an SSBN. For ground forces, the Gurkhas - you didn't want to meet them last time - together with the Paras and the Royal Marines. Just so you know what elite forces really are!
Bear in mind that the combat experience of UK forces exceeds that of any South American territory by about 500%
Be sensible - back off. And note that blockades can be viewed as warlike actions.
Should have mentioned: Rotting South American carcasses enrich the soil!!!
Apr 16th, 2010 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd like to invite contributions from any sensible people for a new song:
Apr 17th, 2010 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let's all destroy Argentina;
A defeated bunch of wan**rs;
While we're at it, Venezuela;
Just a bunch of to**ers.
Please add your own verses.
argento, what a fag you are, go to suck off the british soldiers, I would kill you!
Apr 18th, 2010 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0You write too much crap!
Apr 18th, 2010 - 09:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!