MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ thick fog forces two RAF Typhoons and tanker to land in Punta Arenas
Two Royal Air Force Euro Typhoon fighters and their Vickers VC10 refuelling tanker had to land Wednesday afternoon in Punta Arenas, extreme south of Chile, because of adverse weather conditions in the Falkland Islands Mount Pleasant Airport. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell........?
Jun 04th, 2010 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody commenting this article?
Oh No. Imagine the consequences!
The other side could be human after all.
Can´t landing with fog ? Where are electronics nav aids?
Jun 04th, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mains shut down at MP cause solar panels don´t work with fog?
Try with duracell next time.
We know most of you are human, although we have some doubts about your politicians. Indeed we have some doubt about ours!
Jun 04th, 2010 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred:
Jun 05th, 2010 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0First of all. Thanks for your polite answer.
But........
Don’t you think that the decision to let the planes fly through was a political one taken at the highest level?
Quoting a Great Brit: “Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
The end of the beginning was 1833 .................. believe it!
Jun 05th, 2010 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neither historical semantics nor ethnocentric mumbo-jumbo here, just some easily verifiable facts about the Islands:
Jun 05th, 2010 - 02:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 07.600 miles from Britain’s shore.
300 miles from Argentina’s shore.
1.820 Kelpers (Bennies) lived there in 1982.
258 dead, 777 maimed and more than 300 suicides among Brit vets since 1982.
649 dead, 1.068 maimed and more than 500 suicides among Argie vets since 1982.
8 billion pounds (estimated) Argentinean / UK war expenditure. (1982-2002)
!! Roughly 4,5 million pound and l dead soldier for each Falklander !!
In my humble opinion:
How long can a European democracy hide its claim to the oil resources under the seabed of South America by sheltering behind the self-determination rights of its settlers?
Were the issue truly about the UK's duty to the settlers that they should have the right to be British, then this could be assured by offering them relocation to England, Scotland or Wales - with generous financial compensation terms paid by Argentina.
The Falklanders claim should be given moral and political credence. But what is that claim?
They do not want to be an independent nation; they want to be British subjects.
Following from this, they have no special right on what to do with the land on which they live, any more than do other British citizens who live in the way of a proposed motorway, railway line, or nuclear power plant.
In the end Britain will have to go; the issue is when.
A good set of stats there. Remind me who you'd regard to be responsible for that long list of misery?
Jun 05th, 2010 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The oil link is tenuous at best. This issue has been rumbling on since before oil was a valued resource. Argentina simply covets territory that it believes it can cobble together arguments to suggest that it deserves.
There is no inevibility about Argentine sovereignty. I'd guess it is more likely to become an independent Commonwealth state than a province of Argentina.
It is well known that threatening behaviour galvanises a society in opposition. Petty inconvieniences caused by Argentina have much the same affect without even managing to create any punitive downsides. The current approach is simply reducing the likelihood of it ever happening and it's baffling that Argentina can't see that.
I'd go as far as to say that CDK does realise that and simply uses the issue as a political tool to further her own domestic agenda.
Think, you need to think a little harder
Jun 05th, 2010 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should the Falkland Islanders be relocated to the UK? Their home is the Falkland Islands. Many of them are in their 8th and even 9th generations now. If you think that is a just thing to do, then naturally Argentina must relocate all those Argentines of Spanish or Italian descent to Spain or Italy.
The only reason Falkland Islanders keep their link with the UK is because of Argentine aggression. If you can't see that then you are obviously incapable of reasoned thought. The Falkland Islanders have the right to choose what their status is at the end of the day. It has nothing to do with Argentina.
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 05th, 2010 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What rights Jorgebobo? You don't have any rights in the Falklands...
Jun 05th, 2010 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Port Desire, British forever!
Idlehands:
Jun 05th, 2010 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Responsibility for the 1982 misery is undoubtedly ours.
Remember though that Britain, joined the Common (Eurogerman:-) Marked 28 years after WWII.
Oddly enough, 28 years have passed since “The South-Atlantic Troubles” of 1982.
And Pleeeease............The oil link is NOT tenuous.
Is absolute, is primordial, is crucial.
Next you will tell me that the “Coalition of the Willing” liberated Iraq to protect their religious freedom!
My comment is based in the present article.
“Three military British aircraft in distress got permission to fly through Argentine air space”.
Nice gesture.
Say no more....
J.A. Roberts:
As I clearly state in my comment, the Falklanders self-determination right is being used as a pretext to claim mineral resources 8.000 miles away from home.
All civilized and democratic countries relocate, after proper compensation, thousands of people each year to make way for “common interest projects”.
For instance, in Copenhagen-Denmark, more than 2000 persons got their property expropriated some years ago to make way to a motorway to the Airport.
They were not entirely happy.
Everybody else is happy.
Nobody died.
Jorge:
De donde sale un energúmeno como vos?
De la Escuela de Mecanica de la Armada?
English Translation: “Dear George. Mind your manners”
Comment removed by the editor.
Jun 05th, 2010 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you have to resort to equating compulsory purchase orders for building projects to a policy ethnic cleansing then you really have lost the plot.
Jun 05th, 2010 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the oil issue. Was that the spur when you began making claims to the Falklands in the 19th century?
As I understand it, the oil rights belong to the islanders, not Britain. If oil is found they benefit, not Britain.
Jun 05th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The island's distance from the UK is irrelevant as indeed are their distance from the coast of South America. What the islabders want to be is up to them and Britain will support their wishes.
And that's as it should be. People are more important than countries, more important than boundaries. Nearly every country in the world has some dispute with its neighbours over borders. The Falkland Islands are just one on a long list and that is why the world doesn't really care very much. Not enough to go against Britain on the matter.
I too believe that the islands will eventually be an independent sovereign state and member of the Commonwealth.
Think#6 said
Jun 06th, 2010 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“How long can a European democracy hide its claim to the oil resources under the seabed of South America by sheltering behind the self-determination rights of its settlers?”
and
Think#11 said
“J.A. Roberts:
As I clearly state in my comment, the Falklanders self-determination right is being used as a pretext to claim mineral resources 8.000 miles away from home.”
Think:
The UK is not claiming any of the mineral resources in the Falklands. The mineral resources of the Falklands belong to the Falklands, not the UK. It is the Falklands government which grants licenses for exploration and extraction of mineral resources, not the UK government. All licenses, royalties, taxes on profits, taxes on earnings, etc related to the exploration, extraction, etc of around oil the Falklands are payable to the Falklands government not the UK government
Idlehands:
Jun 06th, 2010 - 01:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0In what possible way did I ever equate compulsory purchase to ethnic cleansing?
The news about rich oil deposits around the Falklands was first conveyed to a British government in 1969. By 1975, 50 oil companies had applied to Britain for exploration rights. (Source: The Guardian)
In the 19th century the spur was not, of course, oil but the control of the seas.
“Britannia waives the rules” and all that, you know.
Hoytred + dab14763:
The oil rights belong to the Islanders and they, not Britain will benefit?
Are you really, really sure?
Would really, really like to see some form of proof about this asseveration.
Surfed the Internet thin, didn’t find any.
I agree, of course, that people are more important than countries and boundaries. That’s why I applaud the right decision of letting the three airplanes fly over Argentine territory.
“Hoytred + dab14763:
Jun 06th, 2010 - 04:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The oil rights belong to the Islanders and they, not Britain will benefit?
Are you really, really sure?
Would really, really like to see some form of proof about this asseveration.
Surfed the Internet thin, didn’t find any.”
Think:
You could try the Falklands Government Department of Mineral Resources
http://www.falklands-oil.com/
The relevant legislation:
http://www.falklands-oil.com/
The fiscal regime:
http://www.falklands-oil.com/
And I didn't say the UK wouldn't benefit. What I said is that the UK is not claiming the oil because the oil doesn't belong to the UK. The UK will benefit if any of the oil is sold in the UK, but so will any country where the oil is sold.
Dear dab14763
Jun 06th, 2010 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your 3 links only inform that oil activity will, of course, be taxed with 9% royalties; 29% corporate tax, capital depreciation 25% per year etc etc. Nice figures but..........
Where does it say where all this money goes?
Who decides about it?
The Queen?
Her appointed Governor?
Or the Assembly?
Of course the Falklanders will get a little share of the action. They are after all the excuse!
Maybe I misinterpreted the article below; maybe not. What do you think?
UK stakes claim to huge area of South Atlantic seabed
By: Owen Bowcot
The Guardian (UK)
Monday 11 May 2009
A vast tract of the South Atlantic seabed – rich in oil and minerals – was formally claimed by the United Kingdom today.
The British claim is contained in a 63-page document that will be posted on the UN's website. It defines the precise limits of the extended continental shelf area around the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
The Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown said: “Successful completion of this process will confirm the boundaries of the UK's jurisdiction over its continental shelf, thus ensuring our sovereign rights to manage the shelf for future generations.”
Think, you need to try thinking again. The Falkland Islands are not a motorway. They are a territory which belongs to the people who live there. Their right to self determination is not some “pretext”, it is a right enshrined in international law. The oil is a recent development, which has come long after the Falkland Islanders right to self determination. Anyway, how can it be a British “pretext” if the revenues from any oil or any other wealth in the Falklands accrues to the Falkland Islands and NOT the UK. Please acquaint yourself with the facts and THINK!
Jun 06th, 2010 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think........ I will just stop here.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have realized that:
The vociferous Argie side, here in MercoPress, is mostly composed by foul-mouthed thugs but................
The Brit side......... Well, you don’t even take the trouble of reading or answering the material from your interlocutor.
Your total denial of the fact that OIL is the key of this conflict makes dialog “a tad difficult”.
Your own Foreign Office minister Lord Malloch-Brown, commenting on the British claim for the continental shelf area around the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands stated on the 11th May 2009 to the press:
“Successful completion of this process will confirm the boundaries of the UK's jurisdiction over its continental shelf, thus ensuring our sovereign rights to manage the shelf for future generations.”
But no no no ...... .... You know better.......
Have a nice day.....
Think, Argentina reactivated the claim many decades before the prospect of oil became apparent, so your assertion that the conflict is all about oil falls down completely.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Furthermore, the Islanders right to self determination derives from the UN Charter and UN GA resolution 1514, which came into force in 1948 and 1960 respectively. The later of the two nearly a decade before the prospect of oil in Falkland Island waters became apparent. On top of that licenses to prospect and drill for oil are granted by the FIG and any potential revenues accrue to Stanley and NOT London.
Securing the EEZ around the Falkland Islands is nothing more than the UK's duty. It is obliged to do this on behalf of the Falkland Islanders. Every maritime country in the world is going through this process at the moment, including ARGENTINA.
Think, please THINK!
No more mate.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I got booored.
Its like speaking to a wall......
May the Sun shine on you all
Yup, Think, facts tend to be wall-like. There's not much you can do about that. Good luck to you too.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am always quite amazed at the Argentine enthusiasm for banging their heads against that brick wall. Negotiations over sovereignty do not mean that Argentina gets sovereignty and as Britain isn't going to give it there are no need for talks. But they keep on banging their heads ... amazing!
Jun 06th, 2010 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I tried to dialog using a verifiable, authentic, up to date declaration of your own Foreign Office minister to the British press about the South Atlantic.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most people would call it a “Fact”
And I did not “bang my head” at your wall.
I spoke politely to it.
As Ghandi did:-)
Oil is currently an issue. It was not so in 1829 and the British position has not really changed since it made protests to Argentina over Argentina's assumption of rights it had never had ( see correspondence between VISCOUNT PALMERSTON and M. DE MORENO 1834 ).
Jun 06th, 2010 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is currently an issue. The British position is pretty clear on this too as indeed is the UN Charter (see Resolution 1514 (XV) 2).
”Facts' are always IN issue .... see any lawyer :-)
Still, no comment about the current (2009) public declaration of your Foreign Office minister.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nor about the common sense in the Argentine decision to allow your warplanes to fly-through.
Can we at least agree that Mohandas was not “any lawyer” ?
I'm not quite certain why you think the statement by Lord Malloch-Brown is important.?
Jun 06th, 2010 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Roberts above has already answered you - “ ...Securing the EEZ around the Falkland Islands is nothing more than the UK's duty. It is obliged to do this on behalf of the Falkland Islanders. Every maritime country in the world is going through this process at the moment, including ARGENTINA...”.
I'm not certain that I can add anything as it seems pretty clear. I understand that there were time limits to get the claims in and the British government, which deals with such foreign affairs on behalf of the Falkland Islands government, submitted in time.
It all looks like pretty standard administrative stuff to me?
ps. I wouldn't rely too much on The Guardian though, an insignificant left-wing newspaper!
Erm, Think, Where exactly does Lord Malloch-Brown's statement mention oil?
Jun 06th, 2010 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hoytred:
Jun 06th, 2010 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From Wikipedia:
The website, guardian.co.uk, is one of the highest-traffic English-language news websites.
The Guardian has the second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world, after the New York Times.
An insignificant left-ing newspaper you said?
As Ghandi was an insignificant little man perhaps?
Think, I have no idea what your Ghandi fixation is about but here are the British National newspaper circulation figures for April 2010 (source ABC)
Jun 06th, 2010 - 02:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Figures given are per issue sale for the month and percentage change year on year
Daily Mirror 1,239,691 -6.13
Daily Record 331,012 -7.08
Daily Star 823,025 0.05
The Sun 2,955,957 -0.06
Daily Express 665,731 -8.26
Daily Mail 2,096,074 -3.86
The Daily Telegraph 683,220 -11.81
Financial Times 386,590 -8.19
The Guardian 288,917 -15.83
The Independent 188,119 -7.98
The Times 506,997 -14.18
Yup, an insignificant left wing newspaper !
Hoytred:
Jun 06th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My momentanuous “fixation” with Ghandi is because he succeeded in the seemingly impossible task of making the “brick wall” dissapear.
The second largest online readership of any English-language newspaper in the world and you call it insignificant!!!!!!!!
Talking about “brick walls” !!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Probably because the Gruniad is not highly read outside of its liberal readership, it is not significant.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Presumably the “brick wall” you refer to is Indian independence, that was already being consiudered in the 1930s. The bit you fail to appreciate is that the British Empire was dissolved by the British themselves by granting independence, there was never the wars of independence that other European empires saw.
“Brick wall” the only “Brick wall” I see is the one where haven been presented reliable documentary evidence that the Falkland Islanders determine their own future you ignore it. But then thats what racist bigots do, they de-humanise people to justify their own inate prejudices.
Think#18
Jun 06th, 2010 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pardon me for thinking that when I gave you the links you would do more than just look at their front pages. I should've known better. Silly me.
@ Think. Can I make a few comments over your recent posts.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#18. You seem to doubt the final disposal of any oil revenues. The first point that needs to be made is that whilst Britain still has responsibility, in consultation with the Islanders, for foreign affairs and defence, it does not have responsibility for fiscal matters. I could go on about UK tax rates being different, but I have a better idea. Why don't you ask the Falkland Islands Government? I'd do it but I'd hate to be accused of making up the answer.
Then you and Hoytred seem to have got into an inconsequential dispute about the readership of The Guardian. As far as I can see, Hoytred has quoted circulation figures for the newspaper (i.e. number of copies paid for) whilst you have quoted figures based on website “hits”. Which is more appropriate for determining actual readership?
You go on to mention a statement made by Lord Malloch-Brown. In relation to your assertion that this is current (2009), you might want to note that it relates to a territorial claim. That territorial claim, being around the Falkland Islands, comes under the head of foreign affairs, one of the two heads that remains Britain's responsibility on behalf of the Falkland Islands. However, Lord Malloch-Brown belonged to the previous government. Britain has had a general election since then. Try http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/18/jeremy-browne-no-doubt-about-our-sovereignty-over-the-falkland-islands As far as I can see Britain has accepted the principle of self-determination as set out in the UN Charter. In fact, it has accepted it since the Charter was ratified.
Why do you “get bored” when other posters disagree with your position? I'm sure that some others get bored at repeating the refutations of Argentine/South American arguments, but it is hardly civilised to simply respond that you are bored when others do not accept your arguments.
Once again Think, where exactly does Lord Malloch-Brown's statement mention oil?
Jun 06th, 2010 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets recapitulate:
Jun 06th, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At Nr. 1, I started the debate by approving the civilized decision to let the 3 warplanes fly through.
At Nr. 6, I show my contempt for the high cost in human life’s the 82 conflict caused. I conjecture that oil is, today, the cause of the problem and I write that the 3.000 islanders have no special democratic rights should the 60.000.000 Britons in the mainland decide to negotiate a solution with Argentina.
At Nr. 13, I’m blamed for “equating compulsory purchase orders for building projects to ethnic cleansing.”
I never did!
At Nr. 18, I cite the UK’s Foreign Minister mentioning the “Boundaries of UK” and “Our jurisdiction” not the “Boundaries of the Falklands and “Their jurisdiction”
At Nr. 20, I give up.....
At Nr. 24, I’m made aware of the special Argentinean “enthusiasm for banging our heads against a brick wall”
At Nr. 25, 26, 30 and 32, I express my admiration for a great humanist with a capacity to resolve impossible problems and then.....................
At Nr 33, I’m blamed of being a “racist bigot that de-humanises people to justify my own innate prejudices”
Where will this all end!!!!
Keep tuned!!!!
New contributions since I began writing this post !!!!!
At Nr 34, Some refreshing air enters the debate!!!!!
I do not get bored about disagreement in a debate. That’s what’s all about.
I get bored of people using false accusations or semantic trickery to win a point.
Want an example??? Look at Nr. 29 and 36: He asks me:
“Once again Think, where exactly does Lord Malloch-Brown's statement mention oil?”
Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes, ........He does NOT specifficaly mention OIL.
He is just claiming millions of square miles of South Atlantic sea-bed for the UK just for the fun of it!
Think, I think if you read the documents in question you'll find that the claim relates to the Falkland Islands and the FI dependencies. The claim is not being made “for the UK”. It just happens to be a British claim (which is the form of words Malloch-Brown used) because the Falkland Islands are a British territory. The UK and the Falkland Islands, although sharing British sovereignty are legally separate.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Compulsory relocations?
Jun 06th, 2010 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I seem to recall that a UK Government relocated a number of residents of Diego Garcia and has been quite rightly castigated for it ever since. That was ostensibly for strategic interests.
Compulsory purchases and relocations are a rarely used method in the UK - they prove to be too emotive.
Regardless of the oil issue and given, as you point out, that hundreds of young British servicemen lost their lives in the 1982 and after , why do you think the UK public would support a move to depopulate the islands and hand them over to Argentina?
What Government would cut its own throat suggesting such a scheme?
None I would suggest, in just the same way that no Argentine Government could politically climb down from their sovereignty claim and survive.
Lets put it this way.....
Jun 06th, 2010 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What’s the difference between:
A British Vauxhall Astra.
A Chinese Buick Excelle.
A German Opel Astra.
A Brazilian Chevrolet Astra.
An Australian Holden Astra.
Or an American GM Saturn?
Different names ........ Same good car ......... Same maker ........
In case you are a Falklander, what’s written on your red passport?
You are a British citizen.
You have the right to be it and to live in the Islands until Britain decides otherwise.
Think, you don't really get self determination, do you? The Falkland Islanders decide if and when they give up the red passports. Not Britain. The British government has repeated that over and over again. It could not be clearer. What is more important for a Falkland Islander is what is stamped inside their British passport: “FALKLAND ISLAND STATUS”. Not something any old British passport holder can get...
Jun 06th, 2010 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And backing up my arguments with facts is hardly “semantic trickery”. Oil might be a factor now, but it is a FACT that this conflict was initiated by Argentina long before oil was even thought of. I've given three good reasons why. Quoting a British minister about the EEZ where oil is not even mentioned to back up your assertion that the Falklands conflict is all about oil doesn't really wash, you need to do better than that.
The fact is, the British government is securing the Falkland Island EEZ - for and on behalf of the Falkland Islanders. This is the Falkland Islanders' right under UNCLOS and the British government is obliged to carry this out as it represents the Falkland Islands in foreign affairs. Of course British government is not doing it for fun! I'm sure you'll ignore that as you have already or call it “semantic trickery”, or whatever...
You surely don't think that forced “repatriation” is acceptable in this day and age do you?
Jun 06th, 2010 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would rather hope that people have more rights than that, and in the case of Falklanders they do, via the European Union and the United Nations.
You said “I agree, of course, that people are more important than countries and boundaries”, yet you seem to be suggesting something different.
So do you support forced relocation or would you rather respect the will of the people involved?
To 39 Sheltie:
Jun 06th, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Finally some real issues!!!! Let’s see:
Relocation:
Yeahhh........ Diego Garcia was not a pretty story; they were evicted without any compensation.
Very emotive to put it mildly.
First point:
Let’s just play with an idea and try to be honest.
Let’s imagine for a moment that you (or me) as Falklands residents got the following offer:
1) The normal marked price for your (my) propriety.
2) 1 million GBP (tax-free) for every member of your (my) family.
3) The choice of staying at your (my) own home for free for the rest of your (my) life as an Ex-pat British citizen, an Argentinean naturalized citizen or a double nationality subject.
4) Total freedom to stay or leave.
Well....... I would take such an offer. Wouldn’t you?
Second point:
If the sacrifice of slain British serviceman was to be used as a parameter never to negotiate, then you Britons should still own the whole world.
And - PLEASE DO NOT MISREAD - the above.
I have the deepest respect for those guys.
Think,
Jun 06th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forgot the most attractive option for Falkland Islanders:
1. remain british subjects for as long as we like, and live freely under a government of our choice. No amount of money or wealth could replace what we have living in our own home, and certainly selling out your nation to the highest bidder seems incredible. In any case Argentina would not be able to sell this at home!
Argentina will have to realise that Islanders will just not accept Argentine sovereignty. At all.
“You have the right to be it and to live in the Islands until Britain decides otherwise.”
Jun 06th, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nope, expelling them for whatever pretext would be illegal under International Law. And in case it has escaped your notice, the British Government has devolved Government onto the people of the Falkland Islands, has done so since 1985 and would have done it before that were it not for the fact that the FCO sought to avoid upsetting Argentina.
As JAR points out it is for the people of the islands to choose that simple.
The comparison with cars is insulting, the people of the Falkland Islands are a people with their own distinct identity. I called you a racist bigot because you do not see them as a people, your offensive analogy merely backs that up.
And as someone who has campaigned on behalf of the people of Diego Garcia, what relevance is that. What the British Government did there was wrong and they lost in the High Court. What relevance is it here? Are you suggesting that repeating the same thing fifty years later in the Falklands would be acceptable in the 21st Century.
Its the right of the Falkland Islanders to choose their own future, don't you get it.
To 45 Justin Kunz
Jun 06th, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My car analogy (Nr.40) was in response to point Nr. 38 where the Falklands an the UK are portrayed as different things, when in reality they are the same.
Point Nr 39 just happened to come in when I was typing.
Stop trying to drag me to your own lows of insult and slender.
It wont work.
If the sacrifice of slain British serviceman was to be used as a parameter never to negotiate, then you Britons should still own the whole world
Jun 06th, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or Hitler Europe
”My car analogy (Nr.40) was in response to point Nr. 38 where the Falklands an the UK are portrayed as different things, when in reality they are the same.”
Jun 06th, 2010 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well the fact is the UK and the Falklands Islands are not the same, apart from a shared head of state: Different laws, different governments, different judicial systems. I'm sorry, but you can't accuse me of semantic trickery. These are simple facts.
My point exactly.......
Jun 06th, 2010 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is not an Opel; is a Vauxhall!
Think, the term Kelper used by an Argentine is considered to be hugely offensive. Curious whether you knew that.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its an offensive analogy, whatever, and the Falkland Islands and the UK are not the same thing. Denying people their own identity is a form of racism and dressing it up with a ludicrous analogy is simply offensive.
Because they speak English and are white and have a slightly differently worded passport they must therefore be British?
Jun 06th, 2010 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ones Uncle is white English Speaking and has a similar red passport, is he British nope, Australian yes?
Are you saying that you analogy means he is not who he says he is by virtue of the same mother tongue and genetic ancestry?
But just remember just because a cat is born in a stable does not make it a horse?
I think the same here applies very much to the Falklands.
I have a pretty good idea of the meaning and implications of the word Kelper.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A nice chap from the Falklands explained it to me in the seventies when visiting me at home in Trevelin, Chubut, Patagonia, Argentina
The British citizens with first class passports used it then in a depective form. (kelpers had second class passports at that time)
I am told (not sure about this) that in the later years they have minted a new term: ”Bennies” I do not know how offensive that is.
Maybe somebody can help?
Speaking about Trevelin.... check the following link link if you want to see how we Argies “deny people their own identity” as you so nicely put it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welsh_Argentine
Nos da
Welsh Argentine? No they identify themselves are Argentine of Welsh origin. The Falkland Islanders do not consider themselves to be Argentine. Big difference.
Jun 06th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, so you know the term is considered offensive but you still used it. But not racist eh?
And no Bennies isn't considered offensive, most now use the term in preference to Kelper, which has fallen out of favour for its perjorative use by Argentines.
And the second class passports you refer to, were imposed by Argentina in the Communications Agreement of 1971, the British should have stood up to Argentina and allowed them to use their British passports.
OMG...OMG Mr Kuntz
Jun 06th, 2010 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course, Biiig difference... Those dumb Argie-Taffys don't know nothing.....
Sorry Sahib I used a wrong word.
Please excuse me, very honorable gentleman.
And please please don't hit me bwana.
Think,
Jun 07th, 2010 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unless the new FI Govt has changed plans - Oil revenue-IF ANY(and we dont know yet if there will be any commercial recovery) - would first go to:
Falklands Infrastructure Investment and the Govt Reserves -to put enough by for future generations.
Reimburse UK for the Cost of Defence of the Islands
Then perhaps start working back and repaying UK for the cost of our Liberation in 1982 and Defence since 1982.
So yes in time the Falklands could be paying oil money to the UK - as a repayment for money UK spent on our behalf!
But at all times the chequebook will be in full control of the Elected Falkland Islands Govt.
Seabed - yes UK - Argentina and Chile have all submitted claims to the Un - they would all have been very silly not to have done so!
The seabed claims are to extend jurisdiction over the continental shelf from the current maximum of 200 nautical miles (nmi)( or less if it clashes with the continental shelf under the jurisdiction of another state) to a maximum of 350 nmi (or less if it clashes with a continental shelf under the jurisdiction of another state). If there is a dispute, the seabed claim is suspended pending a resolution of the dispute.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 12:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The current oil explorations are being done within the existing 200nmi continental shelf jurisdiction, so they are not affected by the extended seabed claims.
To 53 Kuntz,
Jun 07th, 2010 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I cannot let this blatant fantasy pass uncommented:
YOU SAY: “The second class passports you refer to, were imposed by Argentina in the Communications Agreement of 1971, the British should have stood up to Argentina and allowed them to use their British passports”.
Excusemeeeeeeeeee????????
The fact is that second class passports for Falklanders (and many others British subjects) where introduced by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, subsequently maintained in the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968 and the Immigration Act 1971.
Falklanders were finally granted full British citizenship in 1983 for obvious reasons.
To 55 Tim,
I agree with you.
That’s what I have said all along.
Of course Falklanders will get some prosperity but the “Lions Share” will go to the Motherland.
You owe it to them.
1) The first 8-12 billion pounds will go to, as you put it, ”Repaying UK for the cost of our Liberation in 1982 and Defence since 1982”
2) And then: ”Reimbursing UK for the Cost of Defence of the Islands”
Here you could end paying a looo.ooo.ooot of money.
A nice ”Rubber paragraph” for Britain.
By the way, nice of Argentina to let the Typhoons fly by.
70.000.000 pounds each!
3) “At all times the chequebook will be in full control of the Elected Falkland Islands Govt”. you say...... Sounds nice....
Good luck for the 8 new members of the democratically elected Legislative Assembly of the British Overseas Territory of the Falklands.
They really got some work.
Amazing - 57 entries (now 58 of course) because 3 planes were diverted due to fog! And the Argentines didn't really have any choice .... curtesy, safety and the avoidance of bas press being paramount of course.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Looking forward to the usual end report from the OAS ..... I wonder how many entries that'll get??
58, Hoytred:
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina had other choices.... but this time we choose the right one.... for all the reasons you mention ... and more.
The “usual” OAS end report, you say.
Do I sense a little bit of sarcasm here?
Is becoming less and less “usual” every time.
Winds of change..... In a Crazy World.........
Think, I find it highly ironic that you Argentine Taffies are allowed to keep your identity when at the same time the indigenous people of Argentina were, and continue to be in many cases, systematically denied theirs.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Like Justin Kuntz says, you choose to be Argentines, the Falkland Islanders choose not to. That is their right.
Let me correct a misunderstanding.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 01) I never said I was Welsh- argentinean. I'm not.
I just had the privilege to live among them long time ago.
“Salt of the Earth” people.
2) Please stop tying to debate ancient history and “time gone by” moral standards.
The challenge here is how to move forward an resolve the South Atlantic conflict.
As much as you wish it, it will not disappear.
2) Please stop tying to debate ancient history and “time gone by” moral standards.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pot to kettle over
Well, you implied that you were Welsh Argentine, but thanks for putting us right. Ancient history? Actually indigenous Argentines continue to be suppressed and ignored TODAY. At the same time the Argentine claim to the Falklands is based on some very debatable ancient history. Very curious. By the way, the Falkland Islanders are also mostly salt of the earth kind of people. They simply want to be left in peace to live out their lives in their homeland of many generations - yet you think they can be booted out against their will, as if clearing countryside for a motorway. You are very strange Mr Think!
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:46 am - Link - Report abuse 062 Stick up your junta
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now, I am an hypocrite. More insults.
Yes, Indians were massacred by Argentineans in the 19 century.
Quick out of my mind, what would be the point in discussing here, for instance ancient history as:
The British slave trade.
The Zulu War.
The Boer War.
The English-Irish conflict.
The English-Scottish conflict
The English-Welsh conflict.
Etc.
Etc.
Etc.
Like I said, indigenous people continue to be suppressed and abused in Argentina TODAY.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to do ancient history, shall I start with Hernan Cortez and the Conquistadores? You think the British/English/Welsh/Scottish/Irish are the only ones to have been involved in a conflict?
65 Roberts
Jun 07th, 2010 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is my English really so bad that you don’t understand anything or are you twisting everything I write on purpose?
Ok, now you don’t speak to us because we have an ongoing conflict with our indigenous peoples.
What’s next......
What about.....
We will NEVER negotiate with Argentina because their Women are ugly?
(I hope some of you guys catch the IRONY I tried to express in the line above. I’m beginning to doubt:-)
@Think.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why should the FIG and the UK negotiate the handover of the Falklands, South Georgia, South Shetland Islands to Argentina? After all...the Argentine claim is without foundation. Something that Argentina deep down knows and that is why she will never take her 'case' to a body such as the ICJ.
Argentina only wants 'negotiations' if the preamble is the handover of the islands to Argentina. She lays claim to territory that she has no claim to....not one that she would be willing to have put to the test anyway. She is trying to impose colonialism upon a people who have rejected her advances.
In many ways Argentina's actions causes me to conclude that she doesn't really want the territory as much as she wants/values what she can gain internally by being 'seen to want' the territory.
66 Think
Jun 07th, 2010 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your logic is all over the place. You keep bringing up British imperial actions and then complain about the relevance when others respond with similar actions by Argentina.
As for my comment about ethnic cleansing read the first line of this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
“Ethnic cleansing is a term that has come to be used broadly to describe all forms of ethnically-motivated violence, ranging from murder, rape, and torture to the FORCIBLE REMOVAL OF POPULATIONS”
That is what you have advocated - the forcible removal of the Falklands population on the basis of ethnicity while comparing it to a compulsory purchase order.
67 Christopher
Jun 07th, 2010 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say “The Argentine claim is without foundation. Something that Argentina deep down knows”
Just for your info: Old citations from British politicians and civil servants:
( The Guardian, Christmas 1982)
The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands ... I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires [now Argentina]. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject.
Ronald Camp, Foreign Office official, internal foreign office minutes, July 1911
We can have no confidence in our claim to the islands succeeding in the event of it being submitted to arbitration.
John Vyvyan, second secretary at the Foreign Office, internal minute, July 24th, 1935
Our case for sovereignty in the Falklands Islands has certain weaknesses.
George Fitzmaurice, legal advisor, Foreign Office, February 1936
The difficulty of the position is that our seizure of the Falkland Islands in 1833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day. It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as international bandits.
-John Troutbeck, head of American department, Foreign Office, October 1936
We are not in any doubt about our title to the Falklands and we never have been.
Francis Pym, Foreign Secretary, in speech to House of Commons, May 4th, 1982
Think - Actions speak louder than words.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Argentina believe so strongly in their claim why have they refused, on numerous occasions, to the ICJ making a judgement when Britain has tried having the issue submitting to the ICJ?
Twisting everything you write Think? More like pointing out the obvious flaws in your logic.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0To my point regarding the Argentine denial of indigenous South American identity, where I said they “continue to be... systematically denied theirs” (#60). You replied we should not bring up ancient history (#61). I completely agree, but the fact is Argentine abuse of the indigenous people in Argentina did not stop with the Napalpli Massacre in 1921. It continues today. I then pointed out that the Argentine is based upon nothing more than ancient history, and very debatable at that.
How exactly is that twisting your words? And where did I say that we would not “speak to you” because of it? How very odd. Even odder is quoting selected statements from FCO officials, which just happen to chime with the Argentine view. Sadly for you they were not the official UK view then, and not now either. And anyway, quoting something pre the UN Charter is about as useful as discussing the Ashanti Wars or the Boxer Rebellion. You need to try a bit harder than that. We've seen this all before...
”The fact is that second class passports for Falklanders (and many others British subjects) where introduced by the Commonwealth Immigrants Act 1962, subsequently maintained in the Commonwealth Immigration Act 1968 and the Immigration Act 1971.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falklanders were finally granted full British citizenship in 1983 for obvious reasons.”
Nonsense, these acts did not make them second class citizens. What they did was restrict their rights to migrate to the UK, affecting only those that wanted to migrate to the UK. But the people of the territories involved do not exercise their rights as citizens in the UK; they exercise them in their own territories. These acts made no difference whatsoever to their rights in their own territories.
THink these 3 statements have been rolled out ad-nauseum as a crystal clear example of the “illegality” of our claim I would say that the doubts of 4 civil servants during a particular difficult period in Britains' history are hardly a good mean number to determine what the status of the islands should be?
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Roughly 30% of Argentines do not agree with the claim If I went and asked 4 peoples opinions in that 30% would that make me immediately entitled to say “no Argentines” support the claim? Carlos Escudes springs to mind as one such of those 30% and one of great intellectual capacity.
and I agree with LegionNi If Argentina beleives so strongly about it's claim it could take it to the ICJ saying “We have no doubt about the sovereignty” is not a good enough answer, it seems to me that in light of Argentina's slightly embarrassing refusal to willingly along with Britain submit these territories for arbitration, and lest us not forget the beagle islands dispute, submitted for arbitation when Argentina did not get the desired answer invasion was launched and cancelled with hours to spare, that seems to me the mentality of country that does not deal well with NO as an answer....
I think we can fully say that the UK's claim has doubts and Argentina's claim has significant doubts, the only party I can safely say who have no doubts are the Falkland islanders.
70 LegionNi
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“If Argentina believe so strongly in their claim why have they refused, on numerous occasions, to the ICJ making a judgement when Britain has tried having the issue submitting to the ICJ?”
Please enlighten me:
When did the UK actually submit the Falklands issue to the ICJ?
Any documentation about this “action”, or just “words”?
Think - I'd love to find the original sources of the quotations you mention from (once again) The Guardian. I cannot find these quotes, or at least the ones before 1982. I understand that there has been some searching at the Foreign Office and that they cannot find them either. Do you have any source other than that of a, what would be the term, “ insignificant left wing reporter” ... ??
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the reason that Britain will not negotiate is that “ The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and their surrounding maritime areas.” That was in last year's letter from Britain to the OAS in reply to their 'standard letter' Resolution. Wonder if the OAS will get it again this year??
74 Think -
Jun 07th, 2010 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“70 LegionNi
You say:
“If Argentina believe so strongly in their claim why have they refused, on numerous occasions, to the ICJ making a judgement when Britain has tried having the issue submitting to the ICJ?”
Please enlighten me:
When did the UK actually submit the Falklands issue to the ICJ?
Any documentation about this “action”, or just “words”? ”
On 17 December 1947 the British government offered to go to arbitration at the International Court of Justice. Argentina sharply rejected the offer on 28 January 1948 in a note to the British ambassador in Buenos Aires, bluntly asserting that the areas in question (the Falklands, South Georgia, the claimed sector of the Antarctic and the associated islands) were Argentinian, without giving justification.
In 1951, 1953 and 1954 Britain made further offers to take the question to arbitration, either to the International Court of Justice or to a special tribunal, but Argentina again rejected all these offers.
Britain then lodged a unilateral appeal with the Court on 4 May 1955, asking for a judgement. The Court Registrar passed the appeal to Argentina, but the Argentine government replied by refusing to
acknowledge the Court’s jurisdiction.
“When did the UK actually submit the Falklands issue to the ICJ?”
Jun 07th, 2010 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are content with the current status so have no need to go to the ICJ. What would our case be? “Please stop Argentina coveting British overseas territory” ??
It would make more sense that we encouraged Argentina to take it there.
Argentina will never give up its claim and the UK will never do anything but ignore it. What is one to do?
NB You seem proud of Argentine magnanimity in allowing the Typhoons to make passage through Argentine airspace. What else could Argentina do? Shoot them down?
The 1955 case was removed from the list in 1956 after Argentina refused to recognise the court as having jurisdiction.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1955 'Application to Institute Proceedings' stated,
“ .... 2. Differences have existed between the Governments of the
United Kingdom and of the Republic of Argeutina for a number
of years, concerning pretensions advanced by the Republic in 1925,
and at various dates thereafter, to the sovereignty of certain
Antarctic and sub-Antarctic territories which belong to the United
Kingdom under prior, long-standing, and well-established legal
titles, dating from, at latest, the period 1775-1843. The territories
in dispute between the two countries form part of the Falkland
Islands Dependencies, consisting of already existing British possessions ...”
The specific dispute in this case, and I believe the subject of the previous offers to take the matter to the ICJ, concerned South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands which were counted a part of the Falkland Islands at that time.
Think has chosen his words carefully...... which is of course, fair enough!
More recent Argentine press speculation that the Argentine Government would finally get around to approaching the ICJ has not resulted in any action. The reality is of course that the ICJ, as in the pulp mill case, would be unlikely to overturn the current situation and in this case would suggest that the UN Charter on self determination applied. That is why Argentina is highly unlikely to go to the ICJ.
76 LegionNi
Jun 07th, 2010 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I found a reference to your asseveration in Googlebooks:
The Official History of the Falklands Campaign: War and Diplomacy
by Lawrence Freedman / Page 121
I quote textually:
“In 1947 and subsequently Britain had in fact offer to submit the dispute over the Dependencies, ALTHOUG NOT THE FALKLANDS THEMSELVES, to the court in the face of Argentine and Chilean encroachments, and in 1955 had even approached the court unilaterally on this matter”.
You “just forgot to mention” that the 1947 offer DID NOT INCLUDE THE FALKLANDS, it was only for the dependencies! (Georgia and Sandwich Islands)
And for all the rest of you lads:
My idea for a new Argentinean geopolitical agenda for the “Falklands Issue” is to produce enough political and economical consensus in the area to persuade Great Britain to reach a negotiated solution, as they did in the “Hong Kong Issue.”
Hong Kong was leased from China. It is of no relevance to the Falklands at all.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 079 Think
Jun 07th, 2010 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do not forget to mention anything. That was not stated in the information I could find. Also this does not answer the question of, if Argentina have such a strong case why have they not taken the issue to the ICJ?
You are also quoting a source, Mr Lawrence Freedman, who has openly admitted to errors in his work. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
Think - “ ... My idea for a new Argentinean geopolitical agenda for the “Falklands Issue” is to produce enough political and economical consensus in the area to persuade Great Britain to reach a negotiated solution, as they did in the “Hong Kong Issue.”
Jun 07th, 2010 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually that's the policy that Argentina appears to have been pursuing since the Kirchners arrived. Not that it's managed to achieve anything yet. And you need to research more on Hong Kong as persuasion did not play any real part. The British sounded China out about an extention to the lease on the New Territories, Chine declined and that was it. Negotiations centred on the handover and attempting to get as many advantages for the local population as possible. Hong Kong island itself was not part of the lease but it made no sense to attempt to maintain it without the New Territories, so it was given to China.
There will not be a negotiated solution. Any negotiation on the issue of sovereignty would go something like this -
Britain - ” It's ours“
Argentina - ” No, it's not it's ours“
Britain - ” Well we've got it, the islanders want us to keep it and you ain't getting it“
Argentina - ” But it's ours”
And so on ad infinitum ...... there can be no negotiated settlement because there is no middle ground. But hey ... best of luck with your concensus :-)
82, Hoytred
Jun 07th, 2010 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite pragmatic and well informed.
The Kirchners are no idiots, nor is Lula, Hugo, Evo, Pepe, Fernando or Rafael.
We (here I mean us argies) strive to achieve a situation in the South Atlantic where, using your own words “It made no sense for Britain to attempt to maintain it”
Good luck to you too Sir.
You are sounding rather confident in a policy that has failed for nearly 200 years!
Jun 07th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am..... I am indeed.........
Jun 07th, 2010 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fair play, solidarity, hard pressure applied to our adversaries, teamwork, individual excellence and the hand of god will guide us to VICTORY....... in South Africa 2010.
As a great argie-irish chap used to say.
Hasta la victoria... Siempre....
Good luck Think. With friends like Hugo, how could you fail?
Jun 07th, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think. I'd like to raise some points over your comments.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Could we go back to #64 and your reference to the British slave trade. What exactly is your point in making this reference?
I'm raising these items separately to make the best use of the limitation on number of characters.
87 agent0060
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My Nr. 64 was in response to J.A. Roberts Nr 60 and 63 who was eager to use the massacring and mistreatment of our indigenous population as an argument for the immorality of Argentineans .
I didn't want to embark in this “Blame” and “Pointing finger” game.
I didn't want to discuss Original peoples rights or Hitler or Bomber Harris or Marylin Monroe or the slave trade in this Forum .
I want to to keep focus on the issue, and the issue here are the Islands.
@88 Think. You didn't answer MY question. Leave #60 and #63 out of it. Why did you refer to “the British slave trade”? You have a choice of statements. Either it had no relevance or state the relevance. Which is it?
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you can read in Nr 63 I wrote: “Quick out of my mind”.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wanted to say “From the top of my head” meaning the first things that came to my mind perpetrated by the British and comparable in cruelty with the Argentinean genocide of the original peoples.
My first though was the Slave Trade.
That's it mate.
You have a very short and selective memory Think.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My 60 was in response to your implication in 52 that Argentina does not “deny people their identity” when that is patently untrue. You replied in 61 that we should not debate “ancient history”, when I had made it clear in 60 that what I referred to was still happening today, so not ancient history. I was not talking about the Conquista del Desierto, I was talking about what goes on all over Argentina TODAY. I tried to repeat this point again in 63 but you are obviously not having it.
You should have thought before making a statement in 52. Anyway, for someone who thinks booting a whole people out of their homeland against their will equates to clearing land for a motorway it's fairly obvious that you don't have a moral bone in your body!
91 J. A. Roberts
Jun 07th, 2010 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you keep insulting and insulting ....
How boooring and primitive...
Please read my Nr, 43
If that is “booting” people then.....
I WANT TO BE BOOT ED!!!!!!!
Insulting? How? Because I point out the obvious holes in your argument? Oh how sensitive you are Think! You need to be more robust in your thinking.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 43 you were “playing around with an idea”. What if the Falkland Islanders said no to your idea? What then? You think it's an offer not to be refused, but then as most Falkland Islanders will tell you Argentine offers are never to be trusted.
As I said elsewhere, repeated by Mr Kuntz in 45, it's up to the Falkland Islanders to decide. But I bet you don't really like that.
@90 Think.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shall I take that as an admission that it had no relevance?
Let's be accurate. Slavery dates back to the “ancient” world. You may recall that the Israelites were slaves in the land of Egypt.
In “early modern” times, slavery can be traced to the Portuguese exploration of the African coast. It was encouraged by the Roman Catholic church in papal bulls in 1452 and 1455. Continued by Spain in the islands of Cuba and Hispaniola because the native populations starved themselves to death rather than work for the Spanish. In 1619 The Netherlands began the slave trade between Africa and America (Virginia), by 1650 becoming the pre-eminent slave trading country in Europe, a position overtaken by Britain around 1700. In 1807, Britain made slavery illegal and took the pre-eminent role in combating the trade.
So, for 250 years, the slave trade was Portuguese, Spanish and Dutch. 100 years later Britain started combating it. Royal Navy vessels were prominent in interrupting the trade, seizing vessels and freeing slaves.
Do you want to back off “the British slave trade” in favour of the truth?
We have not finished. I will be examining your other comments with a view to correcting those that are misguided. Consider this a modern equivalent to the ancient definition of a classroom. “A log with a teacher on one end and a student on the other”.
Can you see it through?
93 Roberts
Jun 07th, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In Nr 91 you say:” You don't have a moral bone in your body!
Yes, I find that insulting.
J. A. ROBERT. HOITRED.
Jun 07th, 2010 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Guys i ought you an answer since a couple of days ago, defenetly i think that there are some points where we wont never agree, you know that i will allways respect your posture, but i dont agree in absolut with many of your assertions.
Firstly, if we take strictly the roles of the u.n. about the right to self determination, it says in one of it's articules that the self determination can't be applyed if it brakes the territorial integrity of a country, you wont never consider as valid the fact that the islands were argentine territory unless for a few monthes in 1832, anyway that's your opinion and it's not so relevant in this case.
On the other hand, if the rights of argentina were false or were allready prescribed, the u.k. could have prouved it perfectly before the u.n., and it didn't need to negotiate anything with argentina, if the islands were a big financial charge for the u.k., it could have given the independence to the islands and conflict was over.
The existance of negotiations before 1982, makes go down the toillet many of your arguments, the u.k didn't need to negotiate absolutly anything if it considered that our rights were false, the british are not idiot or ignorant, if they negotiated with us, it's because they knew that our rights were still legitimate, in fact they never mentioned a word about the soposed illegitimacy of our rights on malvinas, they dont mention it even now.
These arguments and much more are what make think that our rights are still valid, beside i dont base my arguments on the ignorance, i talk to expert people.
Hoitred, about that insignia put by the britsh in 1774 in the islands, i have been reading my survey again, and i remember that i have a mention about it, i found from a good source that a simple insignia was not enough to claim a territory during 18 centenary, you ned an effective ocupation too, and you didn't ocupate permanenlty malvinas untill 1833.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Jelou...
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pour fyn otrou Argentinou!
Un poco solitou aca rodeadou de gringous.
(escribou en Ingleis porquehh si hablou castellanou me bourran :)
Axel - Back in 1834 Lord Palmerston considered the marks effective ... so what's your “good source” ?? (and please don't quote either YouTube or The Guardian)
Jun 07th, 2010 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Think
Jun 08th, 2010 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you complained about Jorge posts, haha try a little bit more with these no brain people and you will see that even Gandhi will give up.
The typical conversation with them is:
You: Hellu
Them: We have the right of self-determination.
YOU: What?
You: but this if for..
Them: We are not a colony of UK but we want to remain British
YOU: but UK is claiming the rights over the Island not you.
Them: UK acts in representation of the Islanders resolution xxx says self-D.....
YOU: But acording with bla, bla...
Them: F@ck off your mother cunt Typhoons fighters, Tomahawk (with not nuclear capabilities by the way)
Wooof is like to talk with a wall so take your time, prepare a good coffee and be ready for a lot of free fun on the net.
Chau
Axel - “ ... The existance of negotiations before 1982, makes go down the toillet many of your arguments, the u.k didn't need to negotiate absolutly anything if it considered that our rights were false ... ”
Jun 08th, 2010 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not so Axel, Britain was prepared to negotiate before not because it believed that Argentina had a legitimate claim but because it believed that its relationship with Argentina was worth more than the islands. But even then the British government was not prepared to go against the islander's stated wishes and even then the islander's were very good at stating those wishes. It of course helped that the British government came to recognise that the islands were, after all, worth more than the relationship with Argentina!
We have no need to dispute your claim because - “ The United Kingdom has no doubt about its sovereignty over the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and their surrounding maritime areas.” To quote a quote!
And Axel, an expert is too often just an old spurt!
100 Hoytred
Jun 08th, 2010 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Congratulations with the 100!
You are, as usual, very accurate and this time about 90% right. Let me just add:
Before 1982 Britain recognized that the Falklands are subject of everlasting grievance to the people of Argentina. The islands lay off the coast of Argentina. Continuing to garrison and supply them from Britain was an expensive legacy of empire.
Baron Nicholas Ridley was seeking a negotiated compromise on the Falklands at the UN.
This was for a transfer of sovereignty over the islands to Argentina with entrenched leaseback to Britain to administer them on behalf of the 1,800 islanders, who would retain their British citizenship.
The wishes of small interest groups and their democratic consent is always important, though hardly an absolute.
Britain never gave the Hong Kong islanders a say in whether they would be handed over to Beijing.
The fate of Gibraltar cannot and is not being delegated entirely to the Gibraltarians.
There is fierce opposition among English political parties to allowing the Scots even to vote on whether or not to end their union with England.
There is nothing special about the Falklands.
The British government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away or atone for the dead.
And you are 100% right about the “experts”.
Think, 90% correct is a pretty good average. Remember -
Jun 08th, 2010 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The dispute between Britain and Argentina cannot 'go away' unless the islanders get true independence (although it's questionable whether they really want it).
2. The dispute between Britain and Spain cannot 'go away' unless the Gibraltarians get true independence (although it's questionable whether they really want it).
3. The dispute between Britain and the Scots cannot 'go away' unless the Scots get true independence (although it's questionable whether they really want it).
I won't bother with the dispute between the British and the Irish because the Northern Irish REALLY don't want it and there's some doubt that the Irish really want it as well.
And you are 100% wrong .. the British Government can stick its head in the sand and the disputes WILL 'go away'. If you ignore anything long enough it just becomes background noise and in effect gets lost.
And the islands do not lie off the coast of Argentina, no more than Paris lies off the coast of Britain!
101 Think
Jun 08th, 2010 - 07:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Before 1982 Britain recognized that the Falklands are subject of everlasting grievance to the people of Argentina.”
Really? Is this recognition documented? I doubt it.
The British governments stance prior to 1982 had nothing to do with what Argentina wanted, it had everything to do with money. Supporting the Falklands was expensive and to their shame the British government of the time briefly considered a phased hand over of sovereignty. Thankfully, they realished that with the islanders completely rejecting the idea that it would be political suicide to continue.
“There is fierce opposition among English political parties to allowing the Scots even to vote on whether or not to end their union with England.”
The SNP (Scottisj National Party) put themselves forward in the latest general election offering a referendum on Scotish independance. They did not gain any more MPs and so the idea was clearly rejected by the Scotish electorate. That's how democracy works.
Also it would be for indpenedance from the Union not England as England forms part of the union along with Wales, and Northern Island.
“There is nothing special about the Falklands.”
Yet the Argentine government has repeatedly stated the the Falklands are a special case.
“The British government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away or atone for the dead.”
It was Argentina who invaded in 1982 beginning the war, so it is Argentina who must atone for the dead, their blood is on Argentinas hands.
“The fate of Gibraltar cannot and is not being delegated entirely to the Gibraltarians.”
Funny, but didn't the Gibraltarians hold a referrendum to do just that? Yes, the referrendum where they firmly stated that they wished to remain under British sovereignty.
102 Hoytred
Jun 08th, 2010 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say: ” And the islands do not lie off the coast of Argentina, no more than Paris (France’s capital city N.A.) lies off the coast of Britain!
Just checked Google Earth
France (Capital city: Paris) lies indeed off the cost of Britain!
Well we've been trying to get hold of that place since the 1200's without success, so I wouldn't hold your breath in respect of the Falkland Islands, at least not as far as the geographic argument goes :-)
Jun 08th, 2010 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0105 Hoytred
Jun 08th, 2010 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmm........
Weren’t them (the Normans) that fetched Britain in 1066 ?
I'll keep your advice, won't hold my breath.
The Normans did indeed invade England in 1066 and from them Britain gained its French claims ............ and it was many centuries before we gave up on those ............... but eventually even we had to give up !
Jun 08th, 2010 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0@69 Think. You quote a number of comments, most of which pre-date World War 2. Quoting Francis Pym is interesting as it is the reverse of the others.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Effectively, the majority of these comments are no longer relevant on two counts. First of all, research has discovered further historical evidence in support of the British/Falkland Islands position. Second, the whole issue of history has been overtaken by the UN principle of self-determination. The people of a territory, in this case the Falkland Islands, have the right to determine their own government and allegiances.
The oft-quoted subject of territorial integrity is often brought up, but this is a red herring. Territorial integrity is all about avoiding such actions as Germany's annexation of the Sudetanland in the 1930s supported by the German-speaking inhabitants. That is not the case with the Falkland Islands. For the greatest part of its history, the Islands have been occupied by British and British-descended people and has been a British territory. There is no attempt by the Islanders to secede from Argentina, nor is there any attempt by Britain to claim part of Argentina.
There is also the matter of the oft-quoted United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata. But this represents more present-day countries than Argentina and was centred about the Rio de la Plata. It was superseded by two states, the United Provinces of South America and the Liga Federal. The Liga Federal was later crushed by the UPSA but Paraguay, Bolivia and Uruguay still broke away. Using territorial integrity, where would Argentina go next? Claims to Bolivia, Paraguay and Uruguay? On the basis of language, ethnicity, background, history such claims would be more appropriate than the one to the Islands.
The islands lay off the coast of Argentina
Jun 08th, 2010 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentinian Island of Martin Garcia lays off the Uruguayan coast
@74 Think.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A mistake! At #70, LegionNI said,“If Argentina believe so strongly in their claim why have they refused, on numerous occasions, to the ICJ making a judgement when Britain has tried having the issue submitting to the ICJ?”
Notice that he says “Britain has tried”. The fact is that the United Kingdom offered to take the dispute over the Falkland Island Dependencies to mediation at the International Court of Justice in the Hague in 1947, 1948 and 1955; on each occasion Argentina declined.
Think - may I reccommend the Falkland Islands Constitution Order 2008 as essential reading in establishing to whom Falklands oil belongs (at least as between FI and UK Governments, see FIG website). Chapter 1 Clause 1(a) is quite unequivocal on the issue, and this right has been restated in recent months by both the outgoing and the incoming UK Governmnets. Falklands oil belongs to the people and the Government of the Falkland Islands.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 01:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The contention by others in these posts that oil is the driving force behind the UK claim is never going to be sustainable in a full historic perspective which goes back to the 1770's, not 1832 as taught in Argentina.
The Argentine psyche seems to struggle with the concept of devolved Government, perhaps having been imbued for two centuries with autocratic centralised bullying this is understandable, but for any kind of sensible discussion to be had in fora such as these, that understanding is required. If you begin to understand the relationship of British Overseas Territories, of which there are several, with the UK Government, you begin to understand the underlying legal position. Falklands oil belongs to the Falkland Islands - that doesn't mean that there are not a host of other tangential and related issues, but that is the core.
And looking forward as we always do to the arid formulaic debate in the C24 which nobody much listens to or takes any notice of, the responsibility of the C24 is not to Argentina or to the UK, nor is it to mediate in any dispute or give direction. Its only responsibility is to the people of the Falkland Islands. It is a pity they don't have the collective balls to take on this responsibility.
107 Hoytred
Jun 08th, 2010 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And never forget your historical/genetical claim over Germany you proud Angeln- Sächsische people!
Rule Britannia! ;.)
@Think:
Jun 08th, 2010 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you ignoring me now? Start from #108.
“There is fierce opposition among English political parties to allowing the Scots even to vote on whether or not to end their union with England.”
Jun 08th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...What? There is a very small minority of people in Scotland who would want that, same as in wales and even Cornwall. Fortunately most sane people realize it's in no-ones best interests.
If Scotland, wales and England split this isle would have no way of defending itself in the event of a war. Look at Ireland, with a full time army of 8,500 people. If another nation was to fart in Ireland's direction she would fall.
If England was so opposed to Scotland gaining Independence why would Wesminister have given them their own parliament?
113 Agent0060
Jun 08th, 2010 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First you want to lecture me at (94) that the British slave trade was not so bad after all because of bla. bla. bla.!!!
Then at (110) you think you FOUND A MISTAKE! Not so.
Please read my (79) and Hoytred’s (78) that backs my case.
You are not an inspiring teacher so, YES, I’m ignoring you.
@115 Think.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now we get to it. You don't like it that history shows that slavery (in terms of Africa and South America) was instituted by Portugal, Spain and the Roman Catholic Church. And I didn't mention the “British” slave trade because it was a trade in which various countries took part. I didn't mention it being “not so bad”, I just pointed out that it was Britain that made it illegal and tried to combat it. Note that if a slave set foot on British territory (including a British vessel) they were immediately deemed to be free. Your inclusion of “bla. bla. bla.!!!” clearly identifies you as a half-educated nationalist parrot.
And I did find a MISTAKE. BY YOU. You couldn't even read what the original poster said.
Clearly, you are of the same ilk as most of the other Argentine/South American posters. Incapable of further discussion when the argument is going against you.
Don't bother with any more. You are now classified with such as gdr, jorge! and NicoDin. Just worth a laugh, sometimes. Go back to an intellectual pursuit you can cope with. Like comic books.
I can't see that the slave trade has any relevance to the Falklands either. What will be next? Something about Anglo Saxons fighting with the Celts?
Jun 08th, 2010 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank's Idlehands
Jun 08th, 2010 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently I have been expulsed by the “professor”:-)
And some more insults for my colection
Now I'm a “half-educated nationalist parrot”
Kraaa Kraaa
@117 Idlehands. If you go back, I think you'll find that Think (definitely wrong choice of name) was seeking to suggest that there was no point in discussing “ancient history” and, surprisingly, chose a number of topics aimed at illustrating the cruel, imperialist, colonialist British/English.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But he's been found out! The same semi-educated Argentine with the government-provided line in claptrap. Ignore him/her/it. The only positive thing to come from it is the definition of “ancient history”, i.e. before mid-20th century, and that there's no point in discussing it.
Or worse....... I could be an Argentinean spy.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Think
Jun 08th, 2010 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In Nr 91 you say:” You don't have a moral bone in your body!
Yes, I find that insulting.”
It's interesting that you don't dispute my reasons for not finding a moral bone in your body...
@Axel. We've been through this all before. How can territorial integrity be of relevance? The Falklands have never been part of Argentina. And furthermore UN Res 1514 is relevant ONLY to non self governing territories, which Argentina is not, so doubly irrelevant.
121 J.A. Roberts
Jun 08th, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too late........... you insensitive rascal!
You will have to apologize on your knees (and give my Malvinas back) before I cook you dinner :-( :-( :-(
119 agent0060
Did you get the joke about being spy, agent0060?
Suppose not :-( :-( :-(
HOITRED.
Jun 08th, 2010 - 10:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The letter of lord palmerston that i have, was an answer to minister moreno wrotte in 1849, in hes answer he said that the dispute was still pendent betwen both countrys, if our rights were spurious or false, i wonder why did he recognize that the dispute was still pendent?.
I would like to send you all my survey, if you want, you can search me in facebook with my full name, and i will send you the letter and everything i have of my survey.
I remember that you made a comment about what an adquisitive precription is, and you said that you found it in wikipedia, let me suggest you something, if you want to make a serious investigation about something, you can't search anything in internet, because it's not a reliable source, some times you can find great concepts, but you can find a lot of crap too.
About the experts who i talk with, if you prefer to underestimate their words, that's your problem, living in the ignorance or in a fancy world could be a good choice some times to scape from the reality.
About the reasons why the u.k. negotiated with arg. before 1982, maybe you are right with your assertion, but i found really extrange the fact that the u.k. does not mention a word about the soposed illegitimacy of our claim, in fact it never did, beside like i told you before you wont never accept the fact that the islands were argentine territory unless for a few monthes, and since 1833 the u.k. is braking our territorial integrity, that's why if we take strictly the roles of the u.n., i dont think that you really have the right to self determination, anyway this is not my idea, i rode it in the words of a couple of diplomatics and experts in international right, i repeat that i dont base my arguments on the ignorance, or on mendacious concepts that i could find in internet.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
If you're offering asado I might think about it...
Jun 08th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How do you like your steaks? Blue rare, medium, burnt to a crisp?
Jun 09th, 2010 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0I could throw some wild haggis on the parrilla too.
Hahahahaha que turro,
Jun 09th, 2010 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The poor Axel was 1/2 hour thinking and writing and you just respond “If you're offering asado I might think about it...”
hahaha oh stop with the argumentation of the UN, diplomats is boring stuff they don't want to heard it and we don't want to read any more.
What about a joke's competition 1st in English and later in Spanish.
Here I go,
How Mr. Cameron is going to tackle the unemployment in UK?
By pushing Brits from Dover cliffs.
Is not good I know it but it is a start. Isn’t it?
123 Axel Arg
Jun 09th, 2010 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“About the experts who i talk with, if you prefer to underestimate their words, that's your problem, living in the ignorance or in a fancy world could be a good choice some times to scape from the reality.”
Axel, who are the experts you are speaking with and getting your information from? Are they all Argentine? Where are they getting their information from?
Guys guys guys.....
Jun 09th, 2010 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Until no I have tried to avoid using “historical” arguments in this forum for multiple reasons such as:
1) I don’t “really” know an iota about history.
2) I have some difficulty distinguishing between true histories, stories, opinionated tales, fairytales or damned lies on the Internet. Haven’t you?
3) Historical facts tend to be interpreted in very different ways. A constructed example could be:
John (from London) states:
In 1647, Sir Basil Fawlty of Torquay took a dump somewhere in Lafonia.
That’s indisputable proof that the Islands are British.
Manuel (from Buenos Aires) responds:
He sh**ed in our territory!
You obnoxious supremacists!
I’ll kill you!
But.......... In the process of checking and reading the links and references that you so kindly have provided me, I stumbled over an seemingly old internationally accepted, indisputable, authentic, signed document.
The Treaty of Utrecht. (1713)
Here, it seems, Great Britain got Gibraltar and ceded control of all South American colonies to Spain.
Would anyone care to comment?
To 126 NicoDin
Yes, the way to a man's heart is through his stomach ☺
And always Remember what our beloved Juan Domingo once said:
VIOLENCE IS THE BEASTS RIGHT.
@Nico, actually I was responding to Thinks potential offer of dinner.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Axel, please read UN Res 1514 (1960). I think you'll find territorial integrity can only be applied to territories undergoing decolonisation, which Argetina is not. What happened in 1833 is irrelevant.
@Think, has been thinking again! I thought we weren't doing “ancient history”, but anyway, the ToU was signed between Britain and Spain. It has nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina inherited nothing from Spain. BsAs took her independence by force and any territory it could in the process. Nothing previously Spanish automatically became part of BsAs, the UP or Argentina. I suggest you try another treaty. And prehaps you should read the ToU anyway, because it certainly did not “cede control of all South American colonies to Spain”, more like gave Britain a stake in the Spanish slave trade if you really want to know.
129 J.A. Roberts
Jun 09th, 2010 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0You haven’t apologize yet but.....
Have You read the Treaty?
I have not!
But the “experts” that have say that Britain did indeed cede... etc. etc. etc.
The same “experts” that apply the Treaty as proof of Gibraltar’s British-ness.
Axel - sorry for the delay, my internet connection is causing problems.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Reference Lord Palmerston, I have asked you before to high light where in his letter he accepts that Argentina has an outstading claim. You have yet to do that!
And I suspect that you have far more respect for politicians and supposed 'experts' than I have ... that's age!
We've been through the 'territorial integrity' argument many times before. Argenina having illegal possession for 2 months in 1832 does not give it any 'territorial integrity' !
Accepting “126 NicoDin” proposition about Jokes
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0An English, a German and an Argentinean general were discussing who had the toughest men.
The English general says, ”Alright, I'll prove the English are the toughest men. Private, get over here! The marine reports as ordered, “Yes sir?” The general says, “See that man over there? Kill him!” Without hesitating, the private pulls out his SA-80 and kills the man. The general says, “See? That man has balls!”
The German general says, That's nothing. Private, get over here! The private reports, “Yes, sir?” The general says, “See that man over there? Kill him and then kill yourself.” Without blinking, the private blows away the guy, then turns the rifle on himself and unloads several rounds. The general says, “See? Now that man has balls!”
The Argentinean general says, “That's nothing.” He calls to a private training high up on a tower, “Hey, private, jump off that tower!” The private answers, “Excuse me, sir?” The general repeats, “JUMP OFF THAT TOWER!” The private replies, “Fuck you, sir!” The Argentinean general says, “See? That man has balls and he's got brains too!”
A British officer spotted a “busker” on the London Tube with a sign, which read: “Falklands Veteran”.
The officer thought, “Poor chap, I was there and it was awful!” took 50 pounds out of his wallet and gave it to the busker.
The officer was then greeted with a hearty: “ Gracias, Señor! ”
Q. How many bennies does it take to change a light bulb?
A. Change? Who needs change?
132 Think - not to bad actually.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Three guys, one Irish, one English, and one Argentinian, are out
walking along the beach together one day. They come across a lantern
and a genie pops out of it.
“I'll give you each one wish,” says the genie, “that's three wishes in
total.”
The Irish guy says, “I am a fisherman, my dad's a fisherman, his dad
was a fisherman and my son will be one too. I want all the oceans full
of fish for all eternity.” So, in the blink of an eye - FOOM! - the
oceans are teaming with fish.
The Argentinian is amazed so he says, “I want a wall around Argentina,
protecting her, so that no one will get in for all eternity. Again, in
the blink of an eye - POOF! - there's a huge wall around Argentina.
The Englishman asks, ”I'm very curious. Please tell me more about this
wall.“
”Well, it's about 150 feet high, 50 feet thick, protecting Argentina
so that nothing can get in or out,“ the genie explains.
”Fill it up with water.“
Q: Hows does an Argentine commit suicide?
A: They claim to the top of their ego and jump.
Q: What is the world's best business deal?
A: Buy an Argentinian for what he's worth, and then sell him for what he thinks he's worth.
An American tourist was in the West End of London: stately residences and squares full of locked private gardens. But no REST ROOMS. He was bursting to go and found an alleyway where he thought he was out of sight. Just as he was unzipping a hand tapped him on the shoulder. The policeman says:
” You are about to commit a public nuisance- come with me.“
The policeman leads the American to a gate in a great wall. He unlocks the gate:
” Anywhere in there, Sir.“
Manicured lawns, statuary fountains, sculptured hedges, huge beds of gorgeous flowers. After doing his business the tourist goes back to the gate:
” Really kind of you……. is that what you call British hospitality?“
” No Sir, that's what we call the Argentine Embassy!”
:-)
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Two Falkland farmers were dragging their dead sheep back to their Land Rover by the head.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Two men from Stanley approached pulling their dead sheep along too. One of them said 'Hey, I don't want to tell you how to do something, but I can tell you that it's much easier if you drag the sheep in the other direction, then you can grab a leg each.'
After the 2 Stanley men left, the two farmers decided to try it.
A little while later one farmer said to the other, 'You know, that guy was right. This is a lot easier!'
The other added 'Yeah, but we're getting farther and farther away from the truck!'
A local old drunk is drinking in Deanos Bar.
A tiny gay fellow sits beside him. After a few beers, the gay guy whispers, “Do you want a blow job?”
The gigantic man flips out, roars in anger, and tosses the little guy out of the bar, then returns to his stool.
The shocked bartender says, “I’ve never seen you react like that. What did that guy say?”
“Dunno. Something about a job.”
A young ventriloquist is touring through the military garrison in the Falkland Islands and stops to entertain at a small bar in Stanley.
He's going through his usual stupid Kelper jokes, when a big burly guy in the audience stands up and says, “I've heard just about enough of your smart ass Falkland jokes. We ain't all stupid here in the South.”
Flustered, the ventriloquist begins to apologize, when the big guy pipes up, “You stay out of this mister, I'm talking to the smart ass little fella on your knee.”
”The Treaty of Utrecht. (1713)
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here, it seems, Great Britain got Gibraltar and ceded control of all South American colonies to Spain.
Would anyone care to comment?”
Is this the usual habit of Argentines making references to treaties without ever having read them?
What article VIII required was for Spain's dominions to be restored to the way they were during the reign of Charles the II:
. . . neither the Catholic King nor any of his heirs and successors whatsoever, shall sell, yield, pawn, transfer or by any means under any name alienate from them and the Crown of Spain to the French or to any nations whatever any lands dominions or territories or any part thereof belonging to Spain in America. On the contrary, that the dominions of Spain in America may be preserved whole and entire, the Queen of Great Britain engages that she will endeavour and give assistance to the Spaniards, that the ancient limits of their dominions in the West Indies be restored and settled as they stood in the time of the abovesaid Catholic King Charles II.
Since Spain had exercised no dominion whatsoever of the Falklands or over many other places in the Americas, in these cases there was nothing to restore.
137 dab14763
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say: “Since Spain had exercised no dominion whatsoever of the Falklands”
That's why i really dislike discussing history... Please check following link:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_history_of_the_Falkland_Islands
Think,
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read the extract from the treaty. It says to restore things as they were during the reign of Charles II, so yes, I'm right. No Spanish presence whatsoever during the reign of Charles II (1665-1700). Spain had no presence in the Falklands until France handed over its settlement in 1767
139 dab14763
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok......
But please remember to inform all your other “historians” and “experts” colleagues in the world about your irrefutable findings and interpretations.
in what respects are superman and a modest Argentinian alike?
Jun 09th, 2010 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0None of them actually exist
141 Stick.....
Jun 09th, 2010 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should we be modest???
We are considered the British of South America!!!
HOITRED AND J. A. ROBERT.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON, if we clame the malvinas as part of our territory, the right to self determination can't be applied to our cause, because it will brake for good our territorial integrity, i know that argentina is not a country under decolonization, but we consider the malvinas (a territory under decolonization) as part of our country, in fact, this is not my idea, i am not an expert in international right, i am just a profesor of geography, i repeat that i take the words of diplomatics, and experts in international right, those people knows much more than you and i, if you prefer to underestimate their words, because they say something that you dont like to heard, that's your decition.
Beside if you say that what happened in 1833 is irrelevant, let me remind you that because of the events of that year, we are talking about the sovereign dispute of the malvinas, only in your mind it's irrelevant.
On the other hand of course i love asado, if some day you visit buenos aires, maybe we can go to one of our great parrillas, i only have deep diferences with you and most people in this forum, but i dont have any rancour with anyone.
HOITRED, explain me please what are your bases to say that our ocupation was illigal, i allready told you our arguments, and i gave you the reasons why my country had right to ocupate the malvinas.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Fuerza axel arg
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Por fin uno de mi lado y que no es gorilón.
Entre los dos les ganamos por goleada :-)
Translation for the non spanish speakers in tis forum:
Greetings axel arg
Finnaly one more on my side that isn´t a gorilla (far-right oriented individual)
Between us two they don't stand a chance :-)
Well done with the Jokes I laughed a lot with the joke of the Generals.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I’m not very good with jokes but a have one very short.
An old Argentinean sailing in the Atlantic after a big storm ended up in a remote Island in the south Atlantic.
After meeting one of the young locals and a little bit of chat, the Old Argie ask to the young Islander...
Tell me boy what would you like to be when you grown up?
The boy answer: I wannabe British Sir!
It is not a good joke?
Hahahah hahah hahahaha
Nicotine stop with your jokes I am bereft of ribs
Jun 10th, 2010 - 06:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I like the one that tells the story that the Argies own the Falklands
143 axel arg - Who are these diplomats and experts in international law? Are they all Argentine?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0The way I see it.
Argentina says self determination doesn't apply to the Falkland islanders because they are an implanted population, therefore territorial intergrity applies. Yes?
Argentina bases its territorial integrity claim on the fact they had a settlement on the islands in the 1830's. They didn't have settlement there before that because it was a private venture of Vernets. Only became Argentine when they appointed governor and placed garrison on the island.
Do you not see the irony in this?
Britain had a prior claim to the islands and had never renounced that claim.
The Argentine settlement was therefore breaching Britains territorial integrity.
You can't argue self determination for the Argentine settlers because they are an imported population, so self determination would not apply, and territorial integrity applies.
Therefore Britain had every right to protect is territorial integrity.
If how ever you say no thats not right the Argentine settlers had every right to decide to live under Argentine sovereignty then so do the Falklanders now.
Self determination or Territorial integrity, either way Argentina has no case and no viable claim.
So why does Argentina consider the Falklands as part of Argentine territory? You can't claim territorial integrity based on the Argentine settlement their in the 1830's because that was an imported population, and you can't claim they had the right in the 1830's to self determination because that would mean you would have to give the Falklanders the same rights now.
So what else is there? How can Argentina possibly justify the Falklands being part of their territory?
As a geogrpahy professor you must know that the islands being nearer to Argentina then they are to the UK is irrelevant. Alaska has no land border with the US, the channel islands are nearer to France. Distance is irrelevant so waht else is there?
”we consider the malvinas (a territory under decolonization) as part of our country”
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's the key point Axel. You do, but nobody else does, not even the UN.
@143 axel arg
Jun 10th, 2010 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should “clame” be read as “claim”.
“ ”brake“ ” “ ”break“.
” “diplomatics” “ ” “diplomats”.
“ ”illigal“ ” “ ”illegal“.
” “ocupate” “ ” “occupy”.
“ ”decition“ ” “ ”decision”.
I don't like to correct such an erudite person as a professor of geography (what are your qualifications?), so just trying to be helpful.
Based on your picture on Facebook, you look awfully young to be a professor.
AXEL -“ ... HOITRED, explain me please what are your bases to say that our ocupation was illigal, i allready told you our arguments, and i gave you the reasons why my country had right to ocupate ...”
Jun 10th, 2010 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, you have not! Argentina had no right to occupy. They had NOT inherited anything from Spain and the British had a claim older than Argentina's existence. Britain had not relinquished that claim, as clearly stated on Lord Palmerston's letter. Argentina was fully aware of the position having received diplomatic complaints from Britain in 1829 and 1832.
Argentina's occupation of the Falkland Islands in 1832 was really an act of war and should have been considered as such.
No right = no territorial integrity = no claim ...... goodbye Argentina!
Ok guys It has been fun and I learned a lot, but I have to move on......
Jun 10th, 2010 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Goodbye
Is he really going this time? Goody!! Off to stick his head back up his a**e.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 02:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@agent0060 The Spanish word for teacher is “profesor”, so I think Axel means he is a geography teacher. At least that's what I always understood he was.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 03:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AGENTO060. HOITRED. LEGION NI.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0AGENTO060, thank you for your corrections to my language, on the other hand, you are right, i am very young, in fact the fourth of june, it was my birthday, now i'm 29 years old, but it does not mean that i can't be a professor.
HOITRED AND LEGION NI: I will explain one more time the rasons why my country had right to occupy the malvinas.
The islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty like all the rest of our territory, anyway our independence was declared unilaterally in 1816, that fact made that our rights on the malvinas were precarious, we tryed to improuve our rights in the islands, that's why we had an small garrison there that controlled the territory, but when the british toke possession of the islands in 1833, they removed our garrison, and since that day, they break our territorial integrity.
On the other hand, when the u.k. left port egmont in 1774, it left an insignia that said that the island belonged to the the british majesty, but an insignia was not enough to claim territorys in that time, during those centenarys it was necesary to occupy a territory, and you didn't occupy permanently malvinas untill 1833, before that year, there were just sporadic settlements of british sailors, what kind of controll is that?, beside before and after 1774, you never controlled both islands, you only had a garrison in port egmont (west falkland or gran malvinas), the soledad island or east falkland, was under spanish controll, beside our garrison was in port soledad (east falkland), what you did was a total act of usurpation, you had ho right to despoill our country from the islands, because the rights of the u.k. were precarious too, after 1774 it didn't excercise any permanent controll on the malvinas.
When we talk about negotiations, it does not mean that the u.k. will have to transfer inmideatly the sovereignty to arg, we must find a solution that benefits the three parts of the conflict.
AXEL HERRERA.
@J.A. Roberts. Thanks for the info. I looked it up and, of course, must agree. Only goes to show the pitfalls in mixing languages. Didn't invalidate the query though. Or don't Argentine teachers have to have qualifications? Probably not. Just read the words out of the Argentine government-produced textbooks and atlases.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When we talk about negotiations, it does not mean that the u.k. will have to transfer inmideatly the sovereignty to arg
Jun 10th, 2010 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats big of you
@stick up your junta
Jun 10th, 2010 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree. What he meant was “it does not mean that the u.k. will have to transfer ever the sovereignty to arg”.
If he could spell.
Intersting !
Jun 10th, 2010 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Constitution is not drafted in the Falklands nor amended in any respect by the Falkland Islands Government.
The Constitution is an instrument of Her Majesty's Government and is amended by the Privy Council on the advice of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.
Source : www.falklands.gov-fk
Yes, exactly Think. A British territory given the kind of autonomy it asks for by a British government in exactly the same way British governments previously gave independence to the territories which asked for it. Same process, just steps 1 and 2, instead of steps 1, 2 and 3. On request. There's nothing odd in that is there?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0160 J.A.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you think so........
Interesting reading!
Source : www.falklands.gov-fk
Residents by birthplace :
Falkland Islands : 1339
Southamerica: 210
Other: 1451
Total: 3.000
1) Percentage of native Falkland’s residents 46%
2) Percentage of Southamerican residents 7%
Think, the propagandist
155 Axel Arg -“The islands were submitted to the jurisdiction of the viceroalty like all the rest of our territory, anyway our independence was declared unilaterally in 1816, that fact made that our rights on the malvinas were precarious, we tryed to improuve our rights in the islands, that's why we had an small garrison there that controlled the territory, but when the british toke possession of the islands in 1833, they removed our garrison, and since that day, they break our territorial integrity.”
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel Arg we claimed the islands before Argentina existed, and before Spain took over the French settlement. Our claim outdates Spains claim and therefore out dates Argentinas claim. Leaving a plaque to state sovereignty was standard practice at the time. When you took your independance by force you inherited nothing, and you certainly didn't inherit an island which Spain didn't have uncontested sovereignty to. Much of the land which made up the vice voyalty isn't even Argentina anymore it broke up into other countries.
You can't claim we usurped the land you usurped from us first.
@Axel
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BsAs/UP/Arg did not inherit anything from Spain, so you had no rights to “improve”. You derived no rights AT ALL from Spain. Your garrison did not control the islands. It barely controlled Soledad. The Falklands were never Argentine so territorial integrity cannot apply.
“ it does not mean that i can't be a professor”
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, in UK practice a professor is a high ranking university teacher, someone who is head of a department or sub-department, or someone who has received a professorship. Lower ranking university teachers are called lecturers, senior lecturers, and readers. A school teacher is a teacher, never a professor
164 dab14763
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You demand outstanding English from your foreign interlocutors.
Then please contact Wiktionary and correct them ASAP.
Professor:
1. A teacher or faculty member at a college or university.
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professor#Latin
PS: Axel works at a college.
It would depend what type of college it is. Is it a college as in secondary school or a university college?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go to.: en.wiktionary.org/wiki/professor#Latin
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Type “College”in the “Search”window.
Read: Nr 1
Tadaaaaaaaaaaaa
(You will have to eventually, learn how to find your own info. I will not always be here, you know?
Think, I do no such thing. I simply explained UK practice to Axel. I didn't even say whether it applied to other English speaking countries.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know the differences between the various types of “college” Think, I was simply asking you if you knew. You seemed to know Axel worked at “a college” in the first place. If it's a secondary school, like St George's in Quilmes for example, he would be a teacher. If it was a university college then he could quite possibly be a professor (in the English sense of the word).
Jun 10th, 2010 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I know nothing”. I'm from Barcelona!
Jun 10th, 2010 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel - “ ... but an insignia was not enough to claim territorys in that time, during those centenarys it was necesary to occupy a territory....”
Jun 10th, 2010 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what is your source/authority for such an opinion? Where in 19th century international law does it say this? Please enlighten me because it is obvious from the instructions to Lt. Clayton in December 1773 and Lord Palmerston's letter in 1884 that it was an acceptable practice. Indeed the Spanish were so concerned by the 'marks and signs' left behind that they removed them. And when the Spanish left they also left behind the same marks and signs. Good evidence that the practice was acceptable.
Once again, there is no acceptance in international law that one State can inherit from another, and this is even less likely when the State revolts against its parent State.
And LegionNI is quite right ... the British claim predates that of Spain.
164, 166, 168, 169
Jun 10th, 2010 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny about “Professor” and “College”.
You learned these words from the Romans.
You employ them in your Isolated Isles for many centuries as it pleases you.
And then you are so kind to teach us their real meaning and utilization.
No worries think,you can teach us the Tango
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's Uruguayan mate!
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Such modesty think
Jun 11th, 2010 - 11:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The form of dance that originated in the neighborhoods of Montevideo, Uruguay towards the end of the 1800s, as a variation of Argentine tango, a native of Buenos Aires[1], which acquired great influence in the region of the Río de la Plata. This kind of tango is a blend of the “Uruguayan milonga”, as Jorge Luis Borges stated, and the rhythms of the candombe. It consists of a variety of styles that developed in different regions and eras of Argentina and Uruguay.
175 Sticky
Jun 11th, 2010 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not modesty, just the truth.
Carlos Gardel was from Tacuarembó, Uruguay.
Jorge Luis Borges...... He was Argie..... Well Argie-Brit as a matter of fact, a legacy he shared with Ernesto G. Lynch, of proud Irish descendence.
By the way I’ll include my little “teaser” here too.
Patagonia revisited:
(“Confidential” Please don’t read if you are not a Falklander. Thanks)
Guys:
What about fulfilling the dream of Orélie-Antoine and declare the “Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia” including this time all the Islands and half of Antarctica.
If we need a King, we could always ask the Norwegians.
They are nice chaps, lots of oil-money, know how to drink, their women are pretty and they are at home already. (Grytviken, Queen Mauds land, you know.)
Then we could send those stuffy Londoners and insupportable Porteños packing.
What do you think?
So you wont claim the Tango for the Fatherland Think?
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still you and jorge cut a mean rug
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eomGV4buJzM&feature=related
177 Sticky
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would never claim something that is not mine.
And, by the way, that's not Jorge, that's NicoDin!
Would never claim something that is not mine
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like the Falklands?
Sorry..... I thought 178 was soooo obvious......
Jun 11th, 2010 - 01:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My fault......
Watched too many episodes of Yes Minister.......
Fantasy Island more like
Jun 11th, 2010 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0stick up your junta
Jun 11th, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You write (more than once!):
”Are the Islands next to Argentina in South America or next to London in Europe?
Isla Martín García is an Argentine island off the coast Uruguay”
1) Please Google “Isla Martin García”.
2) Find a good map and look at it.
3) What do you see......? Right! Two Islands!
4) The northern one (Timoteo Dominguez) belongs to Uruguay
5) The southern (Martin García) to Argentina.
Is this your way to offer us West Falkland while you keep East Falkland?
Or just a “Freudian Slip”?
I can cut and paste also
Jun 11th, 2010 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isla Martín García is an Argentine island off the Río de la Plata coast of Uruguay. The enclave island is within the boundaries of Uruguayan waters;
The treaties stipulate that the Martín García Island be an Argentine exclave surrounded by Uruguayan waters. In return for recognition of Argentina's sovereignty over the island in question
Yes,
Jun 11th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The waters are Uruguayan because, at that time, the navigation channel was west of the Island.
That was the most accepted way of settling a border disputeat the time.
Sedimentology has since change that but the border and treaty still stand.
Do you know why Martin García was important in the 19th century?
Check it out.
It has, curiously enough, something to do with the British Empire!
DAB14763. HOITRED. LEGION NI.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 03:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0DAB14763: our sistem is diferent than in the u.k., for being a professor, you have to study during 4 years in what we call (nivel terciario), anyway you can do postgrades or licentiates in the universitys.
HOITRED AND LEGION NI: I allready told you the reasons why my country had right to occupy malvinas, obviously i am not going to repeat them, beside the u.k. could have all the claims that i wanted, but one territory is not yours untill you occupy it, and you didn't occupy permanently malvinas untill 1833.
On the other hand, if the u.k. had any right on the islands, it was only on the gran malvina (west falkland), because you had a garrison there, the soledad island (east falkland), was spanish, and our small garrison was in that place.
Beside i allready told you that my arguments are based on the conversation that i had with a diplomatic, who is an expert in international right, i told her all your arguments, and she refuted me all of them, beside i have been reading for my survey, the opinions of expert from foreign countrys, who confirm what i suspect, when i finish my survey, i will publish it in internet, if you prefer to underestimate the words of diferent diplomatics, that's your problem, maybe you know much more than them, please.
About lord palmerston. i told you that in hes answer to minister moreno, he recognized that the dispute was still pendent betwen both countrys, if our rights were false, why didn't he reject our claim?, find a reliable answer please.
About the insignia, rudas's allegation was contundent, he said before the u.n. in 1960, that an insignia was not enough to claim territorys during those centenarys, it was necesary a permanent ocupation too, so, i have nothing more to add.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
An Argentine diplomat disagreed with the uk over the Falklands?!? this is a first. There is absolutely no excuse for your country to try force those people under your government.you had a peice of paper 180 years a go and this gives you a right to go invade the islands who have never caused anyone any trouble? your country is fucking medieval.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ZETHE: This is evident that for you is a good strategy to play the victim, beside you are omiting very important facts.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wont never justify the invation of 1982, it was the worst mistake, i think it destroyed for good the possibility of recovering the islands, on the other hand, that invation was made by a militar dictatorship, do you know what a dictatorship is?.
Beside the international right must be respected, negotiating does not mean submition, it does not mean that the u.k. will have to transfer immidiatly the sovereignty to argentina, we must find a fair solution for the three parts of the conflict, maybe what is medieval is your mind.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
It's not up to the uk or argentina. the islanders have a right to live how they like.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“About lord palmerston. i told you that in hes answer to minister moreno, he recognized that the dispute was still pendent betwen both countrys, if our rights were false, why didn't he reject our claim?, find a reliable answer please...”
Jun 13th, 2010 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I keep asking you to show me where in Palmerston's letter he recognises that a dispute is 'pendent' ..... I can't see it, give me a clue please. And, have you not noticed, the WHOLE letter is a rejection of your claim.
Note - Palmerston's letter clearly refers to the islandS ... not one but both and his evidence is based on the instructions given in 1771 to the Captain receiving the restitution of all the goods seized by Spain, which included the following .....
“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....”
NB - “ ... whole of the said islands”
Palmerston concludes ' “ ... The undersigned need scarcely assure M. Moreno, that the correspondence which has been referred to, does not contain the least particle of evidence in support of the contrary supposition, entertained by the Government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata, nor any confirmation of the several particulars related in M. Moreno's note.”
And no - diplomats tell lies ... it's often called diplomacy!
Act and Section please.... where ???
HOITRED.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will include as an evidence for my survey, the answer to minister moreno in 1849, both letters are very long, and i have no so much space to writte both in this forum, when you read both, you will realise that lord palmerston recognized that the dispute was still pendent.
About the diplomatics, you can believe whatever you want, like all of us do, every opinion are respectable, but i prefer to take the words of people who studyed and who have academic tittles, instead of taking as true, the words of someone who does not have clue about the international right, you can keep on rejecting all that you dont like to heard, no matter if is it true, i told you more than once that some times it's a good choice to live in a fancy world to scape from the reality.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, I have Palmerston's letter in front of me and if you can interpret any of his words as recognising that Argentina has any claim AT ALL then you are wasted as a teacher, and should be a bloody lawyer!
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry Axel, it's a busy morning and in my haste I forgot to answer the second part of your post.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For my titles, I have an Honours Degree in Law and a Masters Degree in Philosophy .... they took 10 years to get so don't mutter rubbish about studying. Oh, I also have a Cert. Ed some where which makes me a 'teacher' too.
185 Axel Arg “Beside i allready told you that my arguments are based on the conversation that i had with a diplomatic, who is an expert in international right, i told her all your arguments, and she refuted me all of them, beside i have been reading for my survey, the opinions of expert from foreign countrys, who confirm what i suspect, when i finish my survey, i will publish it in internet, if you prefer to underestimate the words of diferent diplomatics, that's your problem, maybe you know much more than them, please.”
Jun 15th, 2010 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel you have spoken to a Diplomat who refuted our arguments. Was she an Argentine Diplomat? A person who’s job it is as a diplomat to promote the cause of her country? Would you consider this person a neutral source of information?
Did she provide you with a list of resources to read from perhaps to further your research, pointing you towards foreign experts in history and international rights? Do you think such a person would point you towards neutral, un-biased material, or towards material that backs Argentina’s claim?
I would very much like to read your paper when you have finished it, but I have to wonder if your research will not be fundamentally flawed.
@Axel: But Moreno's letter was dated 31 July 1849 & Palmerston replied on 8th August 1849.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Afterwards on 24th November, 1849 Argentina & the UK signed the “Convention between Great Britain & the Argentine Confederation, for the Settlement of existing Differences & the re-establishment of Friendship” peace treaty, which agreed existing differences were settled, i.e. including the Falklands/Malvinas and that “perfect friendship” was restored between the two nations.
Then this peace treaty was ratified by Argentina & the UK in Buenos Aires on 15th May 1850.
Therefore, previous correspondence & interpretation of meaning between Moreno & Palmerston appears irrelevant, when the Convention of Settlement supercedes this correspondence & removes any misunderstanding or debate between the two countries.
HOITRED. LEGION NI. DOMINGO.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED: i dont know what lettel of lord palmerston you have, i allready told you that when i finish my survey, you will read both, and you will get your conclutions, there si a lot of information in my investigation, on the other hand, explain please what's a bloody lawyer, what do you mean with that?, whatever it means my information is sustainable, and it soported on the knowleadge of academic people.
LEGION NI: Our chancery is not the only one source for my survey, anyway the information that you can find there is really valuable, i am using a great book called, (segunda cronologia anotada de la cuestion de las islas malvinas-falklands, by ferrer vieyra), in this book, you can find spanish documents, french and english, i only take for my survey the english documents, beside i have so much evidences like, treatys, memorandums, letters, bibliographys, i am very proud of my investigation, because i am getting evidences that i never believed i could get.
Beside i will have an interview with an expert in international right from the u.b.a. (university from buenos aires), anyway i will have the opinions of unless 2 or 3 expert in international right, surelly i will get them in others universitys.
The only one diplomatic who i talk with, is from our chancery, but i need to heard others voices, when our minister refuted all your arguments, she gave me bibliographys that soport what she says, in fact i talk about those bibliographys in this forum in many oportunitys, on the other hand, if you underestimate the words of a diplomatic because she is argentine, what makes you think that only the truth of british diplomatics is valid?.
DOMINGO: I know perfectly about that treaty, anyway my evidences are not soported on it, they are soported in many others important facts, i am not going to repeat them, read all my comments, and get your conclutions, in this articule, you can find a lot of them.
AXEL HERERRA REYES.
@Axel: When I read of about this Convention of Settlement treaty & read the main wording I was really surprised that Argentina & UK had already made peace about the Malvinas as long ago as 1850 & agreed that whilst the UK had a colony that existing differences were settled & that perfect friendship was restored. It seems that Argentina & UK forgot that Argentina had legally renounced its claim by peace treaty by the time Argentina first renewed it's claims permanently in 1941.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I will be interested to read your research. I have read everything here you have posted, but I cannot see how any letters can over-ride a solemn peace treaty which constitutes international law.
Also I am sure past history is secondary, because Argentina voted for resolution 1514(XV) in 1960 which covers the case of the Malvinas/Falklands.
Resolution 2065(XX) reminds AR & UK that even if they agree who has sovereignty peacefully, their sovereignty rights are removed by resolution 1514(XV) & requires that:
“Immediate steps shall be taken, in... Non-Self-Governing Territories... to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations”
Resolution 1514(XV) was voted 89 for and zero against, with 6 abstentions. Argentina voted for this resolution & also voted that it should apply to the Falklands. Thanks to the adherence of UN members to resolution 1514(XV) there are now 192 member states of the UN in 2010, compared to the 96 states in 1960, i.e. the number of free independent states has doubled thanks to the universal implementation of resolution 1514(XV).
Even if Argentina has now changed its mind, it cannot change the deep belief in the supremacy of fundamental human rights that the UN was founded to protect
The UN was formed after nationalism caused the worst war in human history, to try & prevent such horrors. The idea is the peoples of the world give up their petty national greed, cease fighting & work together in peace & friendship
Axel, I await your 'evidence' with interest, although if you believe that Palmerston was not challenging Moreno's claims then I am likely to conclude that you are too biased to be objective.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0195 Axel Arg “The only one diplomatic who i talk with, is from our chancery, but i need to heard others voices, when our minister refuted all your arguments, she gave me bibliographys that soport what she says, in fact i talk about those bibliographys in this forum in many oportunitys, on the other hand, if you underestimate the words of a diplomatic because she is argentine, what makes you think that only the truth of british diplomatics is valid?.”
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel I never said only the truth of British diplomats was valid. What I said was you appear to be drawing all your research from Argentine sources.
You have spoken to an Argentine diplomat. You appear to be using texts she has pointed you towards for your research. My point was, is such a person, a person whos job it is to promote the Argentine cause the right person to go to for research advise? Is the diplomat also the person who directed you to the experts on international rights?
You will be seeing a person who you say is an expert in international right who works in an Argentine university and I'm guessing is an Argentine. Hardly un-baised.
You also state you will be speaking to other experts. Will these also be Argentine experts?
You are using material stored in the Argentine chancery. Hardly un-baised.
You are also using a book called “segunda cronologia anotada de la cuestion de las islas malvinas-falklands, by ferrer vieyra”. Are you using any more books? Is the author Argentine?
As I said I would be very interested in reading any paper you produce and I would give it fair attention.
My only concern is that your research appears to be based on a narrow source of material and only from the Argentine perspective.
Will you for example be visiting the archives in the UK, reviewing books by UK authors, or speaking to UK international rights experts?
Will you be reviewing books by neutral sources, none UK, and none Argentine sources and speaking to none UK and none Argentine experts?
LEGION NI:
Jun 16th, 2010 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is evident that you are understanding just one part of what i said, i told you that in the book that i am using, there are english documents, and i am using only those, that book is great, beside it's not the only one source for my survey, i told you too that i have treatys, memorandums, letters, bibliographys, and the opinions of experts in international right.
On the other hand, i wish to travel to the u.k., i admire very much that great country, but i have no money to do that trip, you have pounds, and you can travel wherever you want, the costs that you pay, must be very cheap, in my case, i have pesos, and the price of the dollar is too hight to get out of argentina, beside my salary is not so hight.
I am sure that before the end of the year, i will publish my investigation in internet, there is still so much to survey.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
I am only commenting to get No. 200 - sad ain't it :-)
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland islands are British - Remember it
i am only commenting to get nª. 201-sad ain't it.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0like it or not, you will swallow all your words, when i show you my survey, and accept it or not, you will take our claim to your sepulture, that's sad too my dear hoitred.
Bullsh*t. The chances of you discovering evidence that has not been repeatedly discussed either here or in a range of history books is highly unlikely. I hope you are prepared for the challenges and criticism that will undoubtedly head you way when you publish.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the Argentine claim, well it's just words which have/are having/ have had no effect since 1833. Many have gone to their graves with your claims still buzzing on but what difference did it make?
Your cause is long lost and only you, the sad people of Argentina, cannot see it.
199 Axel Arg
Jun 17th, 2010 - 08:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“LEGION NI:
This is evident that you are understanding just one part of what i said, i told you that in the book that i am using, there are english documents, and i am using only those, that book is great, beside it's not the only one source for my survey, i told you too that i have treatys, memorandums, letters, bibliographys, and the opinions of experts in international right.”
No I understand what you are saying. You are using only the English documents published in a book.
What I asked though is, was the author of the book Argentine? If so how do we know the author only added English documents to his book which appear to back Argentina’s claim and ignored those that did not? Answer is we don't.
My other questions were - Are you using only source material stored in Argentine archives and are you only going to be interviewing Argentine experts? As you have not answered these questions I can only assume the answer is yes.
If you are only using source material from the Argentine perspective then there is a good chance that it will be biased to the Argentine point of view to begin with, therefore any conclusions you may draw from them will be fundamentally flawed.
I am not saying that will definitely be the case, which is why I look forward to reading your paper.
Trying to explain it another way, if I was to do the same as you, but pull my research from UK sources, i.e. the UK national archives, and only speak to UK experts, would you not yourself agree that any paper written from such sources would be fundamentally flawed?
HOITRED AND LEGGIONNI.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED: I am prepared to accept any kind of critics, even if it comes from a reactionary ignorant like you, i dont adjudge for my self to be the owner of the truth like you do, beside you still didn't read my survey, however you underestimate it, that's your problem.
On the other hand, i told you in many oportunitys, that we all know that we wont never recover the malvinas, we are not 40 millions of moron people, but we claim for them, because it's fair cause, beside no body knows what could happen in the future., maybe you really do know, you can keep on vomiting all your poison against our claim, and parroting all the crap that you like to say all the time.
It wont impide in absolut that we can claim pacefully, and it wont impide neather the progress of the three parts of the conflict.
Some day, sooner or later, like it or not, you will have to understand that our rights on the malvinas, are as legitimate as yours, and maybe in that moment, we can arrive to a fair agreement for the three parts.
LEGIONNI: This is the third time i tell you, that in the book that i am using, you can find, spanish documents, french and english, i only take for my survey the english documents, so, i dont have only the argentine perspective, on the other hand, about the experts who i will talk with, i repeat that i have no money to travel to the u.k. and investigate in the british archives, this is all i can do, beside i will talk not only with an expert from the our public university, i will search another expert from the private sector too, before the end of the year, i will publish my survey, i have a lot still to survey and translate.
Beside i allreay told you too that when our minister refuted me all your arguments, she gave me bibliography of foreign authors that support what she says, i spoke about those biliographys in this forum in many oportunitys, so, she does not have neather only the argentine perspective.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
204 Axel Arg
Jun 17th, 2010 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel I apologies if I have offended you in some way but I don't think you understand what I am trying to say. Your below comment illustrates what I am talking about though,
“Beside i allreay told you too that when our minister refuted me all your arguments, she gave me bibliography of foreign authors that support what she says, i spoke about those biliographys in this forum in many oportunitys, so, she does not have neather only the argentine perspective.”
She pointed you towards foreign authors who support what she says and which I assume back the Argentine claim. Did she point you to any foregin authors who do not back what she says and do not back the Argentine claim?
In regards to the book you mention and using only the English documents from it my point is that if the author of the book is Argentine who do I or you know that the author hasn't picked only the English documents they could find to back the Argentine claim and ignored any that didn't? What I mean is that unless you review all the documents you are not going to be able to see the whole picture.
As to not being able to afford to travel to the UK I am sure if you wrote to the national archive in the UK they would send you any information you requested. You would then be able to review the documented evidence from both the Argentine and UK perspective.
Again I apologies if I have offended you in anyway and I hope I have been able to express the point I was trying to make without causing further offence.
206 Posts in this thread
Jun 18th, 2010 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not bad
207 :-)
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe we should buy some shares...
Jun 18th, 2010 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Murdoch could buy this “News Agency”...
Or.................................Maybe he already does?
LEGIONNI.
Jun 19th, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why dont you wait to read my survey when i publish it, and after get your conclutions, you have no idea about the assertions of the english documents that i am using, beside i am adding the words of british experts in foreign affairs like ian brownley and others, so, dont be afraid, i am not taking into account only the argentine perspective, and on the other hand, i take as a reference of the british arguments, the pepper pascoe document.
Beside, i dont feel offended for what you say, all of us have diferent opinions and they are all respectable, the only one thing that was really offended and unfair, was when you say that argentine people was responsable for the war, that's just a big crap, and i allready told you why.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Argie Hotel Charlie
Jun 19th, 2010 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0calling
Rockhopper Sierra Penguin
over
This thread's going well isn't it ... slipped through the net somehow?
Jun 20th, 2010 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, can I assume that you mean - Sir Ian Brownlie, CBE, QC, FBA (19 September 1932 – 3 January 2010) ?
R.I.P.
Jun 20th, 2010 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Too true ... now, as a conspiracy theorist don't you suspect Axel of having 'taken out' Brownlie so that there could be no contradiction to his survey. Bit sinister Brownlie going just before Axel published his survey :-)
Jun 21st, 2010 - 06:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Knowing Cairo.........
Jun 21st, 2010 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would deem it as involuntary suicide :-(
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!