MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
![“It is not that [Gallo's] mission has been aborted. We have given him a hard blow thanks to the State security agencies,” Cabello underlined](/data/cache/noticias/102697/130x80/diosdado.jpg)
OAS assembly gives full support to Argentina’s Malvinas claim
The Organization of American States (OAS) ratified support of the Argentine demand to seek dialogue with the United Kingdom in order to find a peaceful and definitive solution to the ‘colonialism situation’ of the Malvinas Islands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich and the surrounding maritime areas. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA huge list of the great and the good supporting that resolution then.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0“However Washington did not adhere or vote the OAS resolution. Under Secretary of State for Hemispheric Affairs Arturo Valenzuela said that the US position on the issue is that it’s a bilateral issue between Argentina and Britain.”
Jun 09th, 2010 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only country with anything over the UK, is still supporting the UK by NOT adhering or voting on this.
Must admit though, one thing still hasn't changed, and that is the same old support for Argentina.
Brazil and Venezuela will soon change their minds when the oil starts pumping, and they want a share in the profits.
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
Jun 09th, 2010 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0W.C.
A great “thinker”
Explicit support from 18 states - out of 34!! Who's missing? The United States for one. Canada for another.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0It would be interesting to find out how an organisation dedicated to the concept of free trade squares that with Argentina's actions against firms trading in Argentina who also trade in the Falklands. How does it countenance Argentine actions in the South Atlantic in contravention of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea?
Surely this means that the appropriate members of the OAS support illegal actions? Presumably with hopes of getting a slice of any revenues that may accrue from Falklands oil. A modern, international version of Ali Baba and the 40 Thieves.
Just a Latin American club then, with less and less chance of being taken seriously by the world at large so long as it supports and pursues imperialist colonialist ambitions.
So the same 18 Latin American states support Argentina? nothing particularly ground breaking here, Latin American solidarity etc etc.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do wonder though how they equate ending colonialism with going against the democratically expressed wishes of the Falklander's and are in effect giving the green light as always to Latin American Neo-Imperialism.
Maybe it's like the seasons being in reverse as they are in the Southern Hemisphere?
What a surprise ! And please note that the support is for 'discussions' only. With a couple of possible exceptions no-one is supporting a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina. I haven't checked the wording of the final declaration yet, but what is the bet that it's much the same as last year ... and indeed, every year!
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing is changing!
Perhaps time for grown-up countries to cease bolstering this “club” and let it rename itself the Organisation of Latin American States?
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Good intelligence agent0060
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0As a matter of fact such an organization is being discussed.
Well put Rhaurie-Craughwell. Argentina shouldnt be trying to neogotiate with Britain, Britain doesnt have the right to decide the sovereignty of the Falklands. Argentina should be asking the Falkland Islands Government to discuss this matter, but because this will harm the Argentine claim, as it recognises that the Government in the islands is democratically elected and therefore the Falkland is not a colony, they choose to ignore it, believing that this could be a successful way forward.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I dont understand why Argentina claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands also...did a handful of Argentines try and live there a few hundreds years ago, and Argentina interpret that as having control and claiming the islands before the nation of Argentina was fully recognised as an indpendent nation. Or did Spain give Argentina something which they didnt belong in the forst place, and Argentina recognise this as a legitimate agreement? Or are Argentina in the process or rewriting or differently interpreting history on these two other islands to make their claim more robust? Could be any or all of those! You never know with this country.
Q. How many bennies does it take to change a light bulb?
Jun 09th, 2010 - 12:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A. Change? Who needs change?
What suprised me was the support from Chile. Can someone explain the reasons why?
Jun 09th, 2010 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perfectly correct Think .. who needs change ?? The islander's don't and the British don't ...... and no-one else is in ANY way - important !
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And it only takes ONE Benny to change a lightbulb ..... but how many Argentines .. ?? At least one to hold it, at least one to argue who owns it, at least one to consider its territorial integrity, at least one to figure out whether it'll actually work ... and at least one to consider whether electricity is better than OIL!
Chile probably hopes for Argentine concessions over the glacier they're currently arguing over. Bottom line is that voting for Argentina in the OAS costs them nothing. If it did the votes would dry up.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let’s assume that some 3. 000 young, well-educated, good-fearing British Pakistanis, whose ancestral roots lie 3-4 generations back in Kashmir and Punjab..... Suddenly decided to migrate massively to the Outer Hebrides............ lets say, to South Uist.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They open-handedly buy all ethnic Celts and other indigenous peoples out. (Nobody knows where all that money comes from; there are many rumours) and they settle peacefully in.
Weeks go by and then they “suddenly” decide they want Independence.
Would Britain accept their universally approved “right to self-determination” as an overriding factor and grant them independence, as Argentina is asked to do with the Falklands?
What do you think?
@Think
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is always nice to see what Argentines think of the Falklands people. Why would we want change think? Maybe because we are British? Maybe you should think a little more.
15M_of_Fi
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was no disrespect in my bennie joke, just a bittersweet touch of irony!
Maybe you like tis better:
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! ”
Crappy argument Think, because -
Jun 09th, 2010 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. nearly all of those Pakistanis that you describe are busy dealing with Kashmiri independence
2. if the whole of Scotland and all of its islands voted with a majority for independence then they would get it, and
3. Argentina does not 'own' the Falklands nor is it in any kind of 'union' with the Falklands .... so the issues are dramatically different !
Give it another go, I like a challenge :-)
17 Hoytred
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are dodging the question dear old chap.......
Try looking up “Sealand” if you want a better example.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What question? You must remember - “ The United Kingdom has no doubt about it's sovereignty over the Falkland Islands ....... etc, etc”
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe that this response has just been issued to the OAS Declaration. As it was last year ... and every year.
There is no question :-)
C'mon
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The question is:
What do you THINK Britain would do in the hypothetical situation described in Nr 14.
Territorial integrity would be the principle by the standards of today.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to miss the point that is was not a principle back in the 19th century.
The rules post WWII are teritorial integrity for sovereign states and self determination for colonies and overseas territories.
It's quite simple.
I agree with paragraph 1
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not so sure about paragraph 2
Paragraph 3
Quite simple... you say
Quite an overstatement....I say
Think ... in the hypothetical question I believe that Britain would not be inclined to grant sovereignty as South Uist is only a part of a greater whole, and the whole would have to have a majority in favour of independence.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now if the whole of the Outer Hebrides voted for independence I believe that the British Government would have to consider it under the UN Charter.
Much as they will should the Falkland Islanders vote for independence.
So, in principle, you mean that if the Petro-arabs bought and populated the whole Outer Hebrides area they would stand a chance?
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Think
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am not sure if displacing orignial inhabitants has the right of self-determination. That situation would differ to the Falklands, as there were no original inhabitants and the Argentines who lived on the Falklands in 1830 never claimed the Falklands. Only now Argentina manipulates history in order to back up their claim. Think, you have no real arguement here. I am quite certain that you are trying to allude that the Falklands is a colony, as you seem to be driving at the argument that Britain decides the sovereignty of the Falklands.
Think, seeing as you believe you have superior intellect and some kind of whimsical insight on the Falklands, have you actually ever been to the Falklands or spoken to a Falkland Islander (in person), or do you just subscribe to the typical Argentine imperialist ideology? Because I am pretty sure a (self-proclaimed) intellect would not subscribe to indoctrination.
25 Think _ “So, in principle, you mean that if the Petro-arabs bought and populated the whole Outer Hebrides area they would stand a chance? ”
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I imagine if the above happened and then they lived there for a couple of centuries then the UK government would certainly have to discuss it with them if that was there choice.
If all they did was by the land more in then try to claim independance then no.
It is interesting that you raise this hypothetical scenario though. This in my view is what Argentina tried to do in the 1830's. They moved a garrison into a land claimed by another nation. They became the settlers in a colony, in a land claimed by another nation.
This is the irony of the Argentine argument. They claim that the inhabitants of the island are an imported population and so can't claim self determination and that territorial integrity applies.
Yet this is exactly what their settlement was in the 1830's. It was an imported population and so using Argentinas own argument they could not claim self determination, territorial integrity applies, and as the islands were claimed by Britain they had every right to expell them to maintain Britains territorial integrity.
Does anyone else find this ironic or is it just me?
Good afternoon Mr. MofFi
Jun 09th, 2010 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Many of your questions are already answered in my comments about the RAF typhoons.
Please excuse my “Superior Intellect” kind of writing.
It’s not always easy to express one’s conceptual thoughts using a foreign language.
Just trying my best and keeping spirits high.
Cheers
@26 M_of_Fl.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The answer is that the Pakistanis would have no right of self-determination because they would have displaced the original inhabitants.
However, if any group were to try such a stupid stunt, the UK would have a simple response. There is a missile test range on South Uist!
Thats the spirit agent 006!
Jun 09th, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I specifically wrote: “They open-handedly buy all ethnic Celts and other indigenous peoples out. ”
You call it “displaced the original inhabitants.”
I specifically wrote: “British Pakistanis, whose ancestral roots lie 3-4 generations back in Kashmir and Punjab”
You call them: “Pakistanis”
I specifically wrote: Would Britain accept their universally approved right to self-determination”
You say:“ If any group were to try such a stupid stunt, the UK would have a simple response. There is a missile test range on South Uist!”
Are you sure you are not an Die-hard Argie deep down?
Congratulations
18 out of 38 states - pardon my maths but that is less than 50% so where is democracy eh? And of course those have only approved the logical - that Arg and UK should negotiate! Not that Arg automatically takes over as colonial power - well Ok Chavez and few others like him might back that but not many.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I say logical solution - because it is the logical solution - BUT it is an impossible and pointless one as Arg refuses to accept that she is not the automatic winner and colonial power to be.
As for the Uist comparison - sorry its not - nobody was bought out or told to leave here.
Chile - well we know they always back Arg at places like the OAS - look at a map and see who they have a long boundary with and depend on for land communications between the south and the rest of Chile. We understand them, we also know that, that is about as far as their support goes.Uruguay likewise, you have to be realistic - much as they like us and Uk its not really worth their while upsetting their relations with the big bully neighbour over us! Those sort of declarations are just hot air - and always have been. Rather sadly its “hot-air” that gives Arg. “the feel-good-factor”, rather than reality.
Dear Islander
Jun 09th, 2010 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I pardon your maths but.........
The declaration was approved by acclamation. That means 100%.
18 members declared that they would make their support explicit. (Whatever that means:-)
The OAS consists of 35; not 38 members.
That gives a tad over 50% in favour of the above mentioned explicit support. (Whatever that means:-)
Thanks for considering negotiation logical. You are now member of a selected minority in here.
Uist was not a comparison, it was intended as a perspectivization. And you can read the different perspectives it caused.
Yes, declarations are mostly hot air...... but enough of it gets the balloon flying, mate.
Keep warm and dry, it’s chilly this time of year down there.
I will support Pakistani self-Determination to become a overseas territory of Pakistan. Why not? after all is the first language in cities like London, they have a large businessmen community, a heavy cultural influence in British society, representatives like MP in the parliament.
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I also would like to support the Jamaicans as well and the Polish Argies we you mates self-Determination for all of you.
The new National Anthem of the new PakiJam kingdom could be...
Gocha! “The harder they come” from Jimmy Cliff
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZUNSxRJfwyM
sounds great. Doesn't it?
#25 “ ... So, in principle, you mean that if the Petro-arabs bought and populated the whole Outer Hebrides area they would stand a chance...”
Jun 09th, 2010 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But of course, I don't believe that the UN Charter deals with where the 'people' came from or indeed how they got to be there!
Sorry for the delay in responding, niether of us seem to live anywhere near our roots :-)
Negotiation is only logical if there is some middle ground for the two side to head to, some objective that there's a chance of achieving. In the case of the Falklands Islands niether appears obvious.
The OAS Declaration remains irrelevant. It has made the same Declaration so many times that there is just no effect. Hot air, as you say! Not enough to achieve anything though.
33 NicoDin
Jun 10th, 2010 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think the UK should carefully analyze the possibility of “shared sovereignty” in this specific case.
It would dramatically improve the chances of the Cricket World Cup Trophy ever coming to the British Isles.
On good authority M_FI the reason why Argentina doesn't negotiate with the FIG is fear, by recognizing the Falkland island Govt, they recognize an independent democratically elected government and people it wouldn't go down too well with the whole “you lot are not a people because you don't speak the same language as us or wish to become with with us”, and your quite correct despite the wishes of the most rabid Latin American neo-imperialist supporters here, the whole reason for supporting you guys is self-determination, not oil nor “strategic entry”, but plainly because states have a duty of care to their citizens, it explains why Bermuda or places where the population is as black as my boots who desire to remain British do so and many who have no resources with which the motherland could exploit or even a strategic position? so thus why do such limited conspiracy theorists such as think advocate such a position? because there is oil? Or because the oil explanation fits with their pre-dis positioned dislike of anything European, the European in their simple world cannot act for the benefit of anyone, thus the America's pursue's an insane “anti-colonial” mentality which has tragically dictated the whole Falklands dispute a pathetic refusal to even remotely consider that the islanders such as yourself constitute a separate mentality and perhaps even remotely consider that it would not even be remotely detrimental to consider that an English speaking peoples in Latin America would not automatically signal the end of Latin American civilization as it is? For Goodness sake Not even the Chines ran around screaming that the tiny British garrison in Hong Kong presented a threat to the motherland?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0My advice to Argentina is get real if you percive lost territory, pathetic you have 2,780,400 sq km to play with and are the 8th largest territorial unit in the world I hardly think letting 3,000 people dictate their own lives 400 miles away matters does it?
Think,I bow to your more detailed knowledge of OAS - even so a meaningless gesture by all as they agreed to was that talks should be held - not what the automatic answer had to be before Arg would actually ever seriously enter talks! I agree with you over what those 18 said - probably hot air again!
Jun 10th, 2010 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sadly there never will be any talks about any form of settlement until Arg changes its rhetoric and attitudes. If the K,s had not torn up agreement after agreement and stormed off in a series of tantruns since 2003 - who knows where we might be by now had the pre 2003 stable attitude of slowly building bridges whilst guarding the impossible difference under the soverignty umbrella had continued.
Now it would take a generation to get back to that stage again - and it is all BA,s fault themselves.Bang-Bang - they have shot themselves in both feet-many times over.
Allowing for the fact that no Arg Govt could ever formally drop the claim- and live! Nor would we here ever agree to accept Arg Colonial rule - there never will be a solution until both sides can sit down and find an acceptable middleground - and there is little chance of that happening now for many years.
I have never subscribed to the ifs and buts of who did what to who a century or two- or three ago as being the all-decider, even though I believe our version is correct and valid. I accept that others across the water believe in a different version, but we are all now in the 21st Century and what matters today are the rights and wishes of a People who live in a Country to decide their own future - and the UN acts that way nowadays.
@ Rhaurie
Jun 10th, 2010 - 03:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0And what do you mean by saying rabid Latin American?
You are in Latin America mate did you know that, Mr. Latino Rhaurie?
About what language do you speak?
Pakistani, Chinese, Polish or Portuguese?
I am very confuse now, I am in between The Harder They Come http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39pZIt8k_M
And The “Wie Wie Wiesz” from Bristol http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39pZIt8k_M
But also Punjabi Sufi can be nice for your National Anthem
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o39pZIt8k_M
What do you think Latino Rhaurie?
Regards,
Islander 1 makes some good points. So as a hypothetical case let's say that the Falkland Islanders authorised the British Government to enter into the 'negotiations' that the OAS wished for.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0What options would actually be on the table ???
As I see it there could really only be -
1. The islands remain British
2. The islands achieve real independence.
3. The island's sovereignty is handed to Argentina
4. There is shared sovereignty between Britain and Argentina
Argentina will not accept 1 or 2. Britain (i.e. the islander's) will not accept 3 or 4. Which leaves ........ what ???
Ok guys It has been fun and I learned a lot, but I have to move on......Some final remarks:
Jun 10th, 2010 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 026M_of_FI
You asked: “Have you actually ever been to the Falklands or spoken to a Falkland Islander (in person), or do you just subscribe to the typical Argentine imperialist ideology?
Answer is yes and yes, several times (Alejandro Betts should ring a bell)
36 Rhaurie:
Your comment is sooooo kind of................ “God with Us” ethnocentrical.
And then, your “Robin Hood” finish!: You have so much, we take some.
37 Islander1
A pleasure. Clean cut argumentation. Keep the good work but remember that words like “Never” and “Ever” have a “shutdown” effect on communications. You used them six times in your text.
39 Hoytred
And, to finish just out of the top of my head:
Option 5:
In this ever changing world and when the right conditions have been created by diplomacy, paroxysm of destiny or whatever, a revival of the “Leaseback / Shared Sovereignty” pre-agreement of the seventies with a “stately economical settlement” to all islanders insuring their economical freedom as well.
Good bye
Did you not read the whole thing Nicotine or as per usual did you only pick that which suites yourself?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read between the lines dear fellow and the piece in full! Then though Shallt understand, and it doesn't mean your a rabbit if thats what your asking, think Rabies and the effects it has upon people (frothing at the mouth) I will let you ponder the rest of my piece I don't expect anything compelling perhaps maybe you might post another Youtube video that shows not 4 not 5 but 6 homeless people in London!
Think there is “No God with us” rather just insider knowledge from the great organs of state and my own two cents that the whole Falklands dispute on the South American side is addressed from a distinctly anti-European, specifically anglophobic bias, the sooner perhaps Argentina and most other Latin American states adress this without this silly inherent need to believe that the Hordes of Cortes and HM the Queen will descend from the seas and imminently re-colonise South America perhaps they will adress it in a mature manner? you have to admit Think? Why has Guatemala's claim to Belize and Venezuela's claim to 3/4 of Guyana landmass taken the back burner? why is there such an obsession by Latin American states with these small remote islands? Is it perhaps that irredentism among latin American States is acceptable but not when it is involves a none latin American state?
Ain't nothing Robin Hood about mate, you are the 8th largest landmass in the world and you consider 3,500 rugged people and 12,000 km2 of equally rugged islands a mortal threat to your existance? Get real it just looks like you lot wish to grab land in a very un robin hood manner.
Fare thee well Think.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0I fear your option 5 is just a mix of 3 & 4 ?? Already rejected.
Don't fear; think ;-)
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder why Central and South Americans think anyone cares what they think or say? In the US we consider them like the African countries or the “stans” no one even knows where they are or cares since they are irrelevant.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 044 Fredbdc
Jun 10th, 2010 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Breaking News!
@31 Islander1. The first thing to bear in mind is the ludicrous concept that Think thinks. He doesn't. Go back and read the original proposition. I didn't bother to respond because his posts over several articles already showed him to be a semi-educated Argentine nationalist. There is little difference between his proposition and one where Mr Chaudhry buys my property and then declares independence. Counting me (British) as the original inhabitant, he cannot claim self-determination. And it doesn't matter whether he forcibly evicts me or pays me for the land, I am still the original inhabitant. It does raise one interesting possibility however. If Argentina were to offer to buy the Islands for, say, 10 thousand billion dollars (price of land +estimate of potential revenue) would the Islanders consider the offer?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#37 The one thing that Think's detailed knowledge of the OAS doesn't mention is the fact that 12 members of the OAS also have seats on the UN Special Committee on Decolonisation. I bet they all raced to offer themselves for that Committee so that they could “stack the deck”. Now at #40, Think says he has learned a lot. He hasn't. Note his reference to Alejandro Betts, an individual considered, I understand, in the Islands and by his family, to be a traitor. This clearly displays Think to be an Argie propagandist.
The most important thing is that Britain, Britons, 99% (at least) of the United Kingdom and the UK Government supports the Islanders and the status of the Islands. The United Kingdom has stood alone before. If necessary, we shall do so again. Irrespective of whether that is diplomatically, economically or miltarily.
Interesting reading!
Jun 10th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklands.gov.fk/documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf
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
An even more interesting read would be where all Argentine residents were born if we went back 3 generations. I venture it would be less than 7% South America...
Jun 10th, 2010 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting!
Jun 10th, 2010 - 08:57 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
No need to copy and paste the same comment into more than one story Think, it's just bad manners and I just can't believe you would engage in spam...
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry sahib :-(
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That'll be bwana to you!
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hakuna matata; samahani Bwana.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zikomo kwambiri!
Jun 10th, 2010 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ni imamanta
Jun 10th, 2010 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, Our Constitution was drafted here- over a period of a year or two with drafts going to and fro from our elected legislature and legal writers to the UK Foreign Office with each side making various amendments until we got tothe final version that WE were able to approve and was acceptable to the UK Govt who - thankfully - agree to have the final say in our defence. As the UN recognized nation with jurisdiction over the Falklands the UK has a duty to ensure that we practise a high standard of good open democratic government within the Islands. The Privy Counicill and Queen - naturally as Head of Stae she approves the laws - you will find she does exactly the same for Canada-Australia-New Zealand and a number of other Independent Commonwealth nations as well(often delegated to her Governor General in that country who acts in her name). Its a quirk of the British Monarchy - they have ultimate power -in theory - but in practise they only act with the wishes and approval of the democratically elected Govt of that country - she signs what democracy has approved and wishes. I know it is always something that states with presidents and written constitutions can often never understand - but it works perfectly well - otherwise those other independent countries would not keep it on.
Jun 10th, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think - you still here ?? :-)
Jun 10th, 2010 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander
Jun 10th, 2010 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said that it was “interesting” not “wrong”.
But my point is, of course, that many people just pay lip service to the world “democracy” in the Falklands issue.
You Islanders are caught in an unfortunate geopolitical game and are being used as pawns by all sides.
I know for a fact that’s the opinion of a small number of Islanders. As a Patagonian I feel the same.
My squabble in here is not with you people but with all those priggish, sanctimonious, haughty, self-righteous individuals that will defend you rights until.....................................................something better comes around.
It is hard to tear yourself away isn't it?
Jun 10th, 2010 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't see the islander's as 'pawns', rather as 'knights' fighting for what they believe in. Fighting for their lives and their future. Fighting for their rights.
Noble stuff, eh ??
Si Señor, very prince Valiant.......
Jun 10th, 2010 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Could you please clarify:
1) Who is then the King?
2) Who is then the Queen?
3) Who are then the Rooks?
4) Who are then the Bishops?
Now let's see ....
Jun 11th, 2010 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0The king must be God in his heaven...
The queen is that of the UK, because even with true independence the islanders may keep her as their 'Head of State' as so many Commonwealth countries have done (if you don't have a Queen then you end up with an elected President ... and look where that gets you:-)
The rooks are the British forces that provide security.
And the Bishops ... well if you're catholic then you must recognise those (untrustworth - always 'sidle' across the board - a bit like politicians)
The pawns ... well in this game they're Argentine aspirations, ie expendable!
But don't blame us ... blame all those politicians and ministers who have made to the Argentine people so many promises about the Falkland Islands and circulated unobjective versions of history and who still fail to recognise (maybe) that there is no hope and that the cause was lost a long time ago.
Life's a game after all :-)
Hmmm....The man knows his chess...... Let’s see....
Jun 11th, 2010 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0If I recollect correctly, the knights are (after the pawns) the most often sacrificed pieces in the game.
The decentralized emplacement of the Falklands brings in mind the mnemonic phrase “A knight on the rim is grim and dim”.
Remember also the possibility of pawn’s promotion.
That usually ends with a “new queen in town”.
A bloody game indeed.
Hasta la victoria, Siempre ☺
Siempre :-)
Jun 11th, 2010 - 06:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Patagonia revisited:
Jun 11th, 2010 - 07:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0(“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 not bad and they feel at home already. (Grytviken, Queen Mauds land, you know.)
Then we could send those stuffy Londoners and insupportable Porteños packing.
What do you think?
@fredbdc
Jun 11th, 2010 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hahaha the Africans/Mexicans don’t care about themselves this is funny.
http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/UNU/UNU124/u13514921.jpg
http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/UNU/UNU124/u13514921.jpg
Don’t you see something wrong in your statement?
You are in AmexAfrica don’t you note that mate?
Let me show the president of AmexAfrica here a good picture of him http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/UNU/UNU124/u13514921.jpg
Allow me to show your sprint princes of cumbia in USA
http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/UNU/UNU124/u13514921.jpg
Haha haha you are a really funny guy.
You best rubbish music exported to the world http://comps.fotosearch.com/bigcomps/UNU/UNU124/u13514921.jpg
I would be checking in the mirror if would be you, and also I would be running to the doctor to get a DNA check urgently you have a lot of probabilities to be a “Cuate” (Mexican).
SYL
Nicodin
Jun 11th, 2010 - 09:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0You shouldn't put so much weed in your tobacco.
It affects the quality of your texts hombre!
The argument or discussion on historical claims is now over for ever. The only principle that now exists is that of self-determination as enshrined in the UN Charter. For so long as the Falkland Islanders wish to remain a British Overseas Territory, that is their freely-expressed democratic right. And for so long as they wish to remain British, they will have British support.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED. ISLANDER.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED, i have an answer for you, in an articule of the fourth of june.
On the other hand, in those possible solutions that you mentioned in your comment number 39, you omit that my country probably would accept to share the sovereignty with the u.k., it's a fair solution, because in this way, it would be respected the wish of the islanders of remaining as british citizens, and we can exercise once and for all our rights on the islands, another solution would be to create a protectorate betwen both countrys, in this way, the islanders can keep their economic policy, their constitution, they will keep on being the owners of their destiny, and we can offer defence to the islands, explote some of the natural resorcies, and the three flags would flame in the malvinas, i think it's the best solution, you and many of your compatriots, should learn from ISLANDER, he has allways said that the three parts should sit and find a solution , without any precondition.
ISLANDER: Firstly, it's great to talk to you again, you are the only one falkland islanders who has a constructive and intelligent posture, if everyone would think like you in both sides, we would have allready the solution to the conflict.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
ISLANDER
Jun 12th, 2010 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“There can Only be One”
He is our
“LOCAL HERO”
Agree completely señor Axel
@68 axel arg
Jun 12th, 2010 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a few problems with your brilliant solution.
(1) The islanders will not accept joint British-Argentine sovereignty.
(2) The islanders will not accept the display of the Argentine flag on their islands.
(3) Argentina refuses to discuss matters with the Falkland Islands.
(4) There would be little need for defence, but for Argentina.
Good try, but no banana.
AGENT060.
Jun 12th, 2010 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With your comment i confirm one more time, that with morons like you with such a closed mind, we wont never find a solution to the conflict, anyway you are not the only one with an idiot mentality, in my side, there are planty of morons like you and like many of your compatriots.
I repeat that untill the three parts change their pathetic posture, the status quo will remain during the next 300 years probably.
You and the next generations of islanders can reject for good to discuss with my country about the sovereig dispute, but have in mind that you wont never get rid of our claim, even the great grandchildren of your great grandchildren will have to live with our claim, accept it or not.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - interesting but to some extent I must agree with Agent0060. Prior to 1982 there may have been a chance of some sort of deal but it is far to soon for the Islanders to forget. Wars, even if not officially declared, leave scars that take generations to heal. As a result Argentina 'shot itself in the foot' and now the islanders will not accept any Argentine presence or sovereignty.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I also believe that it is not 3 but 2, as the British have no part to play other than assist the islanders in achieving their wishes.
To the British there is no conflict, just an annoying and repetitive buzzing in the ear which most never hear anyway. And if there is no conflict then there is no need for any 'solution'. This is the policy quite obviously adopted by successive British governments.
As far as I can tell, only one British newspaper actually bothered to report the OAS Declaration.
And the islanders seem happy enough with the status quo, they've lived with it for years and also seem to just ignore the buzzing.
Everyone seems to be able to live with Argentina's claim by ignoring it.
dabt060; i must apologize to you for my hard words to you, anyway my posture about the conflict is the same, but my words were ofensive, i regret, and i apologize to you and to all those that could feel ofended with my words.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 04:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dear chaps,
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sometime ago I posted the following:
“Many of you surely never heard about this episode. But it shaped many of the opinions and concepts we Argies have about the British Empire.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata
Someone rebuffed me saying that Britain had the right to do it because the ??? “Spanish-Anglo” War (surely he meant the Napoleonic Wars) ??? was being financed by the “gold and silver mines of South-America” (wrong address and wrong century chap, no mines in the River Plate area and almost all mines in S-A where depleted by the18th century)
What would be the excuse for this one?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata
Reasons, Think, reasons ..... excuses are for those who consider that they are in the wrong and the people who were there at the time, making decisions, obviously did not think that. After all, tax-dodging is laudible enough :-)
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Be careful ...
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Chancellor of the Exchequer may disagrees with you.
Don't mess with those guys.
what did Napoleon say ??.... money....money ....money !!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 09:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0what does Cameron say ??.... debts....debts.....debts !!
Arquero
Jun 13th, 2010 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Take a “Chill Pill”, wash it down with some turkish yogurt and cam down please.
Think ##
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0in generally ,we eat meats kinds with drinking --ayran ( mixed by
ware) to easing nutrition(digestion) and probiotic effect on intestines...
if you drink it while hungry then it makes relax and sleeping.
my advice to Brits friends !!..........
Think ## do you know Guillermo Stabile ??
www.malvinas1.blogspot.com
this is one of Turkish sport blogs !!
Thanks the Lord!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“54-56 Arquero” does not understand any Spanish.
That reduces drastically the odds of him being an Argie.
He must be an “agent provocateur” send by agent0060 or something :-)
Think ## you right i don't know Spanish but i understand lots songs,
Jun 13th, 2010 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0newpapers..maybe whispers..!
Arquero =Okçu ( in Turkish, is my last name )
*** our culture does not have titles like Lord...Sir..Majesty..........***
===============================================
CORRECTION(79) : written wrongly as - ayran ( mixed by ware)--,
it is true as-- ayran( mixed by water) --.
my frankly advice for everybody...anticancerogen and highly probiotic .
what did Napoleon say ??.... money....money ....money !!
Jun 13th, 2010 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0arquero, you have got it arse about face again
Abba sang money money money you got confused with waterloo
Beef says: ”I am waiting for the paper from Brazil or Chile that indicates their business plan to refine the oil that originates from the Islands. Argentina will hopefully decide to collaborate but there will be others waiting in the wings”
Jun 13th, 2010 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me check the map.... If Chile and Brazil decided not to ”collaborate” who’s left?
Oh yes!
Uruguay, of course.
Obvious choice.
Their ”capitalistic” president could surely use the money to buy a new car!
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/05/uruguayan-president-mujica-only-asset-is-a-1987-vw-beatle
Can someone explain what “full support” means? The UK has not received a written mandate from the OAS or any other nation (apart from Argentina) to discuss this apparent Argentine issue with the Falkland Islands.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil is happy to see ships dealing with the oil exploration dock, re-stock and move on. The Ocean Guardian even called in on it's way to the Islands. They are also happy to welcome the RAF to land in Brazil (if required) when en-route to the islands.
Is full support verbal and not actually anything practical? It would appear so.
Future oil refining anyone!
Hello Beef
Jun 13th, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would you recomend me to put my money on British Petroleum stock?
Think.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is up to you so do your own research. Some speculators have upgraded BP. (There is no such thing as British Petroleum - the name was changed some time ago) to a “Buy” at 437p with a target price of 560p. For me I think that as a dividend may be suspended for the next two years or so then the sp has some further downward pressure. I will be placing a 30 day buy order in between 370-380p tomorrow and will see if I can get in as close to 370p as possible. The sp will climb and if i decide not to trade this acquisition then it will be an income share for me.
I tend to prefer higher risk oil expo but with the hammering this share has taken as of late there is some significant upside potential above the current price, but I would prefer to buy in a bit lower to get more shares for my cash.
BP has traded between 370p and 650p a good number of times over the last ten years so when the current issues pass there are gains to be made.
Do your own research and only invest what you can afford to lose.
Mr Beef.....
Jun 13th, 2010 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be a straight chap so I will not play stupid here.
I set you up and you took the bait.
Earlier, somebody in this Forum mocked an ”Ignorant Argie” that didn’t know the recent history of BP (Beyond Petroleum and all that.....)
I researched a little and found following:
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3a8a80d6f705f8cc/id/622599/cs/1/
As you can read, “The Irish Sun” on the 12/04/10 calls BP for “British Petroleum”
And if the Sun says so, it must be truth! Right?
An unexpected bonus was to find some quite disturbing comments from our “friend” agent0060 on the same article!
They are worth reading!
Always remember Buddha’s last words: “DOUBT EVERYTHING”
----------------------
Investors (including Beef): Read Carefully
http://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3a8a80d6f705f8cc/id/622599/cs/1/
Thanks to Hoytred, for guiding me to this link!
Just my words, ....... just “lawyerly” formulated.
Hey, someone else is using my “name”. Can't be me, he can't spell. But then a South American wouldn't notice that.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Think” reckoned he'd learned a lot and was going away. Unfortunately, hasn't learned anything and sticks around.
I reckon the Deputy Prime Minister has given Britain's answer to the OAS and, incidentally, the USA. Get lost!!
Think.
Jun 13th, 2010 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Explain how exactly you set me up and how I took the bait. If an individual wishes to mock someone then that is their business and I am not interested in infantile mud slinging; it is beneath me!
I don't read the Sun (British that is) due to a history between that publication and the city of my birth (Liverpool to be exact) and prefer to synthesis my own conclusions.
Is your attempt to advise investors to “read carefully” a deramp or something? This article is actually nothing more than an “opinion” and the reality is that opinions are like ar*e holes, everyone has one.
The future of the Falkland Islands will be a compromise. Argentina will likley decide to collaborate and gain wealth from a new frontier hydrocarbon industry. Do you want this for your country or not? Are you planning to put in a buy order for BP or not?
No bait laid and non taken.
89 Beef
Jun 13th, 2010 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I “kind of set you up” by triggering your innate British call for correcting people when you “evaluate” that they are making a mistake.
You Brits are known for that all over the world as we Argentineans are known for being some “Arrogant Asses”
Please keep not reading the Sun. Too many Murdochrats already.
Of course the article is only an opinion. In principle, everything in the universe is.
But this “opinion”, or, as a matter of fact, this economical analysis originates from a very reputable British lawyer that happens to be partner in one of the biggest law firms in the world.
Yes... I want that for my Country, and we are getting it by the renegotiation of the contractual terms in a dynamized marketplace.
No BP shares for me for the moment.
I’m poor as a church mouse.
I thought it was quite an interesting piece, although the compromise referred to does not include sovereignty, I quote,
Jun 14th, 2010 - 03:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ Perhaps the most palatable option for ending the current stand-off is for the parties to create a joint development zone. Such a zone, created by treaty, would allow for revenue-sharing between the two states and be administered by a joint authority. ....... These zones have been successful in other disputed areas such as in the Gulf of Thailand and the Timor Sea.”
In other words a return to the bilateral agreements and talks which Argentina withdrew from in 2007 which had the potential to creat such a 'zone' whilst ignoring the sticky issue of sovereignty. Sadly the Argentine Government couldn't handle that. Particularly as the “two states” would be Argentina and the Falkland Islands !
92 Hoyt
Jun 14th, 2010 - 04:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know is not perfect but it is our best offer.
A kind of “Falklands Law for Dummies”.
A “very reputable British lawyer” lawyer who thinks the Jersey is a part of the UK.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 07:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not a lawyer I would ever employ!
Roger that!
Jun 14th, 2010 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Omen?
Jun 14th, 2010 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Independent
Monday, 14 June 2010
President Barack Obama is demanding that the oil giant immediately puts billions of dollars into a reserve account and submit to an independent panel that will hand out compensation payments to those in the Gulf region who have lost their livelihoods..
BP's dividend, worth up to £1.8bn every three months, accounts for about £1 in every £7 of dividends paid to British shareholders, and its suspension would be a blow to UK and international pension funds who rely on it.
But the payout has become a lightning rod for political anger in the US, and more senior politicians called over the weekend for it to be scrapped.
Amen!
Where there's blame - there's a claim, as someone once said (repeatedly in adverts!). Of course BP is an international concern and apparently at least 40% owned by U.S. shareholders ....... this sort of disaster spreads the crap everywhere.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's amazing to me (who owns no BP shares) is that there is still no suggestion that the company cannot actually afford to pay for the clean-up, litigation, everything! Just how big are they?
BP’s “Bankruptcy Contingency Plan” has been mentioned many times in various ““insignificant liberal” newspapers all over the world.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, “We don’t read those”... Do we?
Long Live Murdochracy!
No, not if I can help it. I do check out The Telegraph, The Buenos Aires Heral, The New York Times, The Falkland Islands News, Gibraltar Online, The Independent, Momento 24, RiaNovosti, Spiegel, The Australian and the Toronto Star ..... apparently one has to pay for the Times these days and I'm just too tight :-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0North Americans had once a “Boston Tea Party”.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0The next one is apparently being hold off the Gulf of Mexico.
It’s time for us, South Americans, to organize a “Mate Party”
Everybody is invited except agent0060
He is like this guy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ItOId-Y54g&feature=fvw
He wants to kill us all!
And by the way Hoyt, Der Spiegel has, in their German version, commented on BP's bankrupcy plan.
I feel sorry for “Think”. He can't read (#87 and #88), he can't count (note his repeated references to the wrong numbers on comments, here and elsewhere) and he is short on intelligence (rarely stays on topic). In other words, a typical student.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0I won't comment to him because he was so rude as not to respond when he encountered arguments/facts that he found impossible to counter and then became offensive.
And now he has the effrontery to ascribe someone else's remarks to me. I don't think all Argentines/South Americans should be killed. They'd make good peasants. An occupation consistent with their intelligence.
I go for the English version but I'll see what I can find. I suspect the 'bankrupcy plan' will consist of doing a runner with as much cash as possible :-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Amazing what you come across when you surf the online news though, for example - “ ... Three countries, Mexico, Costa Rica and Falkland Islands make their official debuts at the Americas World Cricket League Division Four tournament in Mexico City this week.”
http://blogs.cricinfo.com/btw/archives/2010/06/mexico_costa_ri.php
:-)
This explains a few things:
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/4513134/Desire-director-fined-for-insider-trading.html
Hoyt, I need legal advice Hoyt
If, for example a Pakistani citizen wrote a post on the biggest paper in his country volunteering to travel to Great Britain and kill anybody that doesn’t accept the official Pakistani position about Kashmir:
Would the British authorities consider keeping an eye on him?
I wonder if Obama is going to insist on a compensation fund from Union Carbide who manged to kill 15,000+ in one night - or the 160 odd that died on the Alpha Piper rig?
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of Course Not!
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Union Carbide killed only small brownish people in the third world.
That's the way you do it...
Money for nothing...
and the chicks for free...
Tralala
For legal advice you need a lawyer ........ :-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0What would a Bobby's opinion be? :-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the only thing the English and Argentines could ever agree on is that they should ban the vuvuzela at the world cup.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No way Jose:-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No idea ... ask one :-)
Jun 14th, 2010 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmmm...
Jun 14th, 2010 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I sense some collegiality...
No problem..
I'll Google it :-)
HOITRED.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have an answer for you in the articule of the forth of june.
On the other hand, the falkland islanders, and the british can reject and ignore for good to discuss with country about the sovereign dispute, it wont impide in absolute the progress of all of us.
The malvinas cause, is a very painfull hurt, that forces all of us to fight pacefully for our legitimate sovereign rights on the south atlantic, beside it's really cheap and totally unfair to keep on blaming argentina for what happened in 1982, the invation was made by a dictatorship, galtieri was just an irrisponsable moron named by a junta that was not voted by the argentines, do you know what a dictatorship is?, we know what it is, and suffered it in many oportunitys, you are just using in a very hipocrite way, the actions of a repugnant junta to avoid to discuss with our country, maybe you still were not aware that since dicember of 1983 we become into a democratic nation, now we choose our presidents, and only in democratic governments people can be considerated as irrisponsable for the mistakes of a war, in 1882 people's opinion was absolutly ignored, i suggest you to read about our history, and you'll see that i am not telling you crap.
Maybe in 300 years, it will come a day when the islanders understand that our claim is as legitimate as theirs, and in that moment probably we can arrive to the fair agreement that all of us deserve.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
perhaps the argentines are a little bit jealous of the islanders, perhaps they secretly harbour a wish to also be British, well, all you have to do is ask, and the British may consider you joining the club, membership is free, you get not only to be British, but think of all the benefits you will all get, government subsidies , child benefit, job seekers allowances, free housing, the government will also give you grants to build new cities, towns, ect ect, take the plunge now the offer wont last [just like the oil]
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0be cleaver you know it makes sense, [now who's dream was that, Argentineans wishing to become British citizens, i must be dreaming,
no stay as you are [selfish greedy, hostile, and immature]. and let the Falkland enjoy the wonders of the world with the help of their real friends and comrades, [the British] hear, hear, ??????????/
Cheap and totally unfair to blame Argentina for it's armed invasion of 1982? Are you serious? You might not have elected the Junta, but I don't remember anyone in Argentina making any great efforts to get rid of the dictatorship. Most Argentines were quite happy to go along with it all or didn't have the cojones to fight it. I'm sorry, but you Argentines have to take collective responsibility because you allowed dictatorship to happen. Nobody imposed it on you. It was home-grown because you could not organise yourselves and build strong democratic institutions!
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel - I cannot find any answer, so please indulge me and repeat it. All I really need to know is WHERE is Viscount Palmerston's letter he gives any recognition or creedence to Moreno's claim. Shouldn't take more than a few words, any indication, sentence, etc. Just give me a clue.
Jun 14th, 2010 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... for our legitimate sovereign rights on the south atlantic ..”
But that's rather the whole point Axel, we don't believe that you have any and are attempting to steal British rights which have been around longer than your country. *0 years of Argentine propoganda haveppear to have brainwashed all of you to the extent that you cannot now see the flaws in your arguments but can only regurgitate successive government policies.... sad!
The beginning of wisdom for the Argies is to recognise that they aren't going to get anywhere on the sovereignty issue
Jun 15th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0But their pride and immaturity cloud commonsense
Arquero and GDR one of the same?
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0112 Axel Arg
Jun 15th, 2010 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0“it's really cheap and totally unfair to keep on blaming argentina for what happened in 1982, the invation was made by a dictatorship, galtieri was just an irrisponsable moron named by a junta that was not voted by the argentines, do you know what a dictatorship is?”
I have to disagree with your statement here Axel.
Yes it was Argentina under a dictatorship who invaded the Falklands, but this does not excuse Argentina of any guilt for the war.
“All it takes for evil to triumph, is that good men do nothing”
The people of Argentina allowed themselves to be ruled by a dictatorship, they did not rise up against it. In truth the people of Argentina celebrated in the streets when the invasion took place in 1982 so it is completely fair to keep blaming Argentina for the 1982 war.
117 ## Rhaurie : Craughwell ## what aaaan antiquity name ?
Jun 15th, 2010 - 11:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0me = GDR ? not true !! i use just one name here .
of course i'm on the same with all argentines here ( gdr,jorge...and others)
BUT !!!! i feel that some friends have many mail accounts here.
very strange , i read here any american accent englishs , broken accent
british englishs , even Australian accent englishs...but very normal.
Rhaurie -> your style as same as mine which is swift and creative,
i know all these discussions dull and fruitless for you here and you seek
other friends who think differently to discuss anythings rightly.
write at other subjected articles..let's discuss if we know.
Dear chaps,
Jun 15th, 2010 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“The people of Argentina allowed themselves to be ruled by a dictatorship, they did not rise up against it. In truth the people of Argentina celebrated in the streets when the invasion took place in 1982 so it is completely fair to keep blaming Argentina for the 1982 war.”
Or:
I don't remember anyone in Argentina making any great efforts to get rid of the dictatorship. Most Argentines were quite happy to go along with it all or didn't have the cojones to fight it. I'm sorry, but you Argentines have to take collective responsibility because you allowed dictatorship to happen. Nobody imposed it on you. It was home-grown because you could not organise yourselves and build strong democratic institutions!
Many of us fought all our life against the above mentioned.
Many died, some are still in auto-exile, others lost everything but luckily a few are our political leaders of today.
People like Lula da Silva.....Dilma Rouseff...... Pepe Mujica..... Michelle Bachelet need no introduction, they “paid their dues” putting their lives on the line.
These are the people you are dealing with today, not the US trained Operetta Generals from the past.
Would you include the Kirschners in that lot too Think? I never denied there were those who fought against the dictatorship, at great cost, but the simple fact is the Argentine people as a whole allowed it to happen. Nobody imposed the dictatorship on you from the outside. It was 100% home grown.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And anyway, if Argentines are not to blame for the invasion and subsequent casualties, then why were there wild scenes of jubilation on the day of the invasion. I remember them well! I was right there.
(121) J.A. Roberts
Jun 15th, 2010 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
Nobody imposed the dictatorship on you from the outside. It was 100% home grown.
I say:
You where there...... nevertheless you never heard about things like the National Security Doctrine, the Plan Condor, the School of the Americas, the Domino theory, Americas own backyard...........
Not to mention the publicly available declassified CIA documents describing in details their involvement in the organization, planning and execution and administration of the military “coup d'état” in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil and... choose your country....
Home-grown my Buttocks!
Erm, you were allowing dictators and strong-men to run things in Argentina long before the CIA even existed and America had a back yard. The last Junta was just the end of a long list. Like I said before, as a country could not organise yourselves strong, democratic institutions. If you had, none of the above would have happened.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(123) J. A. Roberts
Jun 15th, 2010 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Following your logic:
If the blacks had organize themselves in strong democratic institutions not permitting strong-men to run things in Africa, the Brits would not have been forced to run the Atlantic Slave Trade for more than 200 years, until Denmark abolished slavery in 1803?
Yes, very possibly. You forget the Transatlantic Slave Trade was started by the Spanish and Portuguese and the British proportion never ever reached the size of the Portuguese “business”.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you'll find Denmark did not abolished slavery until 1848, a good 15 years after the British Empire did. Incidentally, Argentina didn't fully abolish it until 1853.
In short: Might is Right?
Jun 15th, 2010 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is was. Might was right in that era. Anyway your comparison was not exactly relevant because slavery was something imposed from outside. A long run of caciques/strong-men/dictators running the show in Argentina was a completely internal thing.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Slavery?
Jun 15th, 2010 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks to slavery the ethnic make up of Argentina at the declaration of independence was predominantly creole (black/mixed race). It is no longer as the country was ethnically cleansed during the War of the Triple Alliance by using the creole population as cannon fodder.
Makes for interesting reading, you'll find Argentines of the Nazi persuasion quite proud of the fact and yes I have met them. Can't say it was a pleasant experience.
127 and 129 J.A. and Justin
Jun 15th, 2010 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Taking about Nazis and racists?
What do you think about our good friend agent0060 comment in this linkhttp://story.irishsun.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/3a8a80d6f705f8cc/id/622599/cs/1/
I know you both “know” him
Can I get a straight answer from you
Please surprise me!
I seriously doubt that was agent0060, as the sentence structure doesn't match his style. More a case of someone trying to impersonate him.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But then let me just say, whoever wrote that was a prat.
Any chance of a straight answer from you in the future.
Ohh Yes ....
Jun 15th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I had my doubts about the “calligraphy”!!!!
His vocals are different and the T's look strange !!!
An impersonator...... right !!!
Geee...
HOITRED. LEGION NI. J. A. ROBERT.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOITRED. i have an answer for you in the comment of the forth of june, beside, if the u.k. is in the malvinas much longer than us, i allready told you why, i am not going to repeat all my arguments again, on the other hand, you dont accept another truth but yours, that's why you suffer of haughtyness, i am not against your rights, i have allways recognized the rights of the islanders, you know perfectly what's my posture about the conflict, you are the one who wont never accept our rights on the south atlantic, you can die with it if you want, but have in mind that you will take to your sepulture our claim too, like it or not.
LEGION NI AND J.A. ROBERT: It's very simple and cheap to criticise a society after 28 years, if you didn't live that context, it's true the fact that people celebrated the second of april in plaza de mayo, but you omit that they were very manipulated by the lies of the dictatorship, in that time, the junta handled all the press, beside you omit too that during the monthes of the war, there was another huge march, wich lemma was,(yes to malvinas, no to the dictatorship).
On the other hand, ¿do you have any idea about, what's living under terrorism of state?, when i talk to many people, they tell me that they suspected that some people were dessapearing, but they were very affraid for their familys, and that's why they could not do anything, in fact my mother had partners at college that were killed, she told me she had to throw to the garbage the books that she had from marx, because in that time, it was commun that the militars got into your house, and if they saw that you had that kind of material, you were tortured and killed.
Anyway many people fought against the dictaorship, that's why we had now 30000 dessapeared people, and 400 bays that were born in captivity in the esma, abuelas de plaza de mayo recovered 101 of them.
You must know the 2 sides of the history instead of saying crap.
Axel - still no answer, just theusual vague reference to the 4th June which isn't an answer.
Jun 15th, 2010 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I begin to doubt that you've actually read Palmerston's letter, you certainly don't understand it!
And what rights in the South Atlantic are you referring to ... I know of none.
HOITRED.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are understanding just what you want, i told in many oportunitys about the rights of my country on the malvinas, i am not going to repeat them, read all my comments again, and get your conclutions,
About the articule of the fourth of june, i make that reference, because i have answers for you in that articule.
About palmerston's letter, you can think whatever you want, about if i have really that letter or not, i dont even care, anyway you will swallow all your words when i show you my survey, and read both letters, i am not a pathetic layer, meantime you can keep on understanding just what you want, that's your problem.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, I await your work with bated breath although the little I've seen so far does not bode well.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0M. Moreno wrote to the British Government protesting the action of January 1832. Viscount Palmerston responded and attempted to point out to M.Moreno why he was wrong in his assertion that Argentina had some claim. Moreno had alluded to the supposed 'secret agreement' of 1771 which Palmerston dismisses as unfounded rumour put out by the Spanish court to save face. Palmerston also points out that Argentina's presumptive actions in 1829 and 1832 were formally objected to by the British diplomat resident in BA. He also makes it very clear that Britain had not abandoned sovereignty in 1774 and had complied with the recognised international norms of the time.
I can indeed think what I want, it is a process I hold dear. I do not accept the arguments/opinions of others unless I understand their reasoning and am able to review their sources. That is called research Axel.
Currently, and until I see clear evidence to the contary, I believe that the history favours the British argument, I look forward to being persuaded otherwise by a well referenced, and reasoned, work .....bring it on!
“it's true the fact that people celebrated the second of april in plaza de mayo, but you omit that they were very manipulated by the lies of the dictatorship”
Jun 16th, 2010 - 07:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh so which bits are lies and which are not Axel. So the dictatorship lied to you all about everything except the Falklands? I don't think so...
Sorry, but you as a nation allowed the dictatorships to occur, not just Videla/Viola/Galtieri but many times before, stretching back in your history... Ongania, Levingston, Lanusse, Aramburu, Lonardi, Rawson, Ramirez, Farrell, Uriburi, Justo, Ortiz, Castillo. Were these people elected openly? I think not... I don't see any history of mass uprisings against the dictatorships. Most of you were quite happy to let it happen.
132 Axel Arg
Jun 16th, 2010 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would never belittle the acts of the few brave Argentines who opposed the Junta. They were brave people.
Having said that though you can just disregard Argentinas blame for the Falklands war.
The people of Argentine celebrated the start of the war. They were not forced out into the streets to celebrate.
If the people of Argentina did not agree with what the Junta did in regards the Falklands war then why has there never been a public apology from a democratically elected Argentine government after the fall of the Junta for what the Junta did in regards to the war?
Exactly, if the people are not responsible for the invasion, then why has there not been an apology Axel?
Jun 16th, 2010 - 03:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J. A. ROBERT. LEGIONI.
Jun 16th, 2010 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is evident that you both keep on understanding just what you want.
I never said that the junta lied about everything, except the events of the war.
You still didn't understand what is living under terrorism of state, i repeat that in that time, there were only 4 chanels, and the censure was used all the time, to all those that said some thing against the line of the dictatorship, i allready told you about the experience of my mother, and there are planty of cases like hers, i told you too, that when i talk to the people, they tell me that they suspected that some people were dessapearing, but they were afraid for their familys, that's why they could not do so much, they did what they could, and i understand them.
What would you both have done in that situation?, i dont know if you have a wife with children, or a boyfriend, whatever you have, would you expose your familys to such a danger?.
JASON, i remember that you said that you lived here in 1982 when you were young, but it's obvious that you only remember what is convenient to your ideological policy, dont you remember about these terrible facts?.
About the second of april, if you heard the statement of galtieri, he said that we had recovered the islands, with out any rancour, but it was no true, actually, the militars did exactly the same than what the british did in 1833, they toke possession if the islands by the force, and obliged the authoritys to leave the power, it was very commun to heard on tv, phrases like, (we are wining), and many others lies, i watched a lot of documentals about the dictatorship and the war, and i confirm what i hold all the time.
Beside, my country suffered many militar dictatorships, with a lot of events of illigal opretion, is it so dificult to understand that in an tirany, people's opinion was absolutly irrelevant?.
It's very easy and cheap to criticise now, why dont read about our history, instead of saying all the crap that you say.
139 Axel Arg
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Axel I do understand what you are saying. I understand it must have been terrible to live under the dictatorship, but you can't claim that excuses all of Argentina from any blame to the war.
It also doesn't explain why there has never been an official apology from an Argentine government formed after the Junta, for what the Junta did.
Axel, I remember exactly what the dictatorship was like. The lechero would not deliver down our street because people in one of the houses there had “disappeared” and he was so sh1t scared that he would also disappear. Whatever life was like under the dictatorship this does not change the FACT that Argentina, as a nation, collectively, ALLOWED the dictatorship to happen.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have failed to answer the question in #137 and #138. If the invasion was wrong then why has Argentina not made a public apology for it? Why?
Please don't equate the armed invasion of 1982 with 1833. The rules in 1833 were totally different to 1833. There is no comparison. And, anyway, Britain protested the BsAs garrison in 1833 and when BsAs did not remove it, it was removed for them. Not a shot was fired. Nobody died. The civilians were given a free choice to leave or remain. Completely different to 1982.
J. A. ROBERT. LEGIONNI.
Jun 17th, 2010 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe in some moment you both can understand that when you live under the policy of fear, there is not so much you can do, i understand people's behaviour in that time, the context was absolutly diferent, during many years my country was not a democratic nation, we had some constitutional governments, but they all were fall by diferent dictatorships since 1930 untill 1983, people was used to have militar governments, when we talk about the historic contexts, we have to analyze then deeply, that's why i talk to the people, and they all tell me the same.
In 1976 people thought that the militar process was going to organize the country, but it does not mean that people were happy when they started to realize that many compatriots were disappearing, in that context people did what they could, all of us were affaid for our familys, in fact there was a great inmigration to foreign countrys, specially to mexico, spain and the united states.
For all these reasons i think it's unfair and cheap to blame the argentine people for the war of 1982, accept it or not, we had no chance to choose if we wanted or not to invade the islands.
It's very easy to criticise now, living in countrys of the first world, and ignoring many important facts.
JASON, i know that there is not comparison betwen 1833 and 1983, i only say that the militars acted in the same authoritarian way than what the british did in 1833, when they obliged our authoritys to leave port soledad, if the u.k. had any right on the islands, it was only on the gran malvina, because it had a garrison there, our garrison was in the soledad island, it was under spanish government during colonial times, and we had started to controll unless that sector, what right had the u.k. to remove our garrison from port soledad?, maybe now you are going to argue that in that time the situation worked in that way, let me tell you that it's just a pathetic answer.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel, whatever I argue doesn't really matter. You still seem to think that “Spanish government” somehow gives Argentina rights in the Falklands...
Jun 17th, 2010 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your garrison was on Soledad for less than 4 months, AND it was protested by Britain, so no, it did not gain you any rights and no, you did not control that sector.
j. A. ROBERT:
Jun 17th, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I forgat to answer you one of your questions, if my country never made any public apology for the war, that was a big mistake, and i think it must do it in some moment, anyway the most important is what most us think about the war, people allways says that it was the absurdest and criminal mistake, like all the wars, we all say that it never had to happen, but the hardest point when we talk about the war, is that we must recognize that if the war woulden't have happened, we could not had recovered the democracy so soon, so, there is allways a good side for every dark storys.
On the other hand, i allready explained to you 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 times, the reasons why my country had right to ocupate the malvinas, obviously, i am not going to do it again, but you still didn't answer me, what rights had the u.k. to remove our garrison from port soledad?, the u.k. could have all the claims that it wanted, but it does not mean that they were really legitimate.
Beside the permanence of an small garrison in port soledad, does not mean anything to you?, if we could not improve our rights on the malvinas, that was only because of the british usurpation, i allready explained you why.
AXEL HERRERA REYES.
Axel - I have an answer for you in January 1833 :-)
Jun 18th, 2010 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, Axel you have “explained” 6.7,8 times but always with a contradiction. You have never explained the contradiction. The reason you give for Argentina's rights is that the Falklands were part of the Viceroyalty and so Argentine “patrimony” but at the same time you agree that Argentina inherited nothing from Spain.
Jun 18th, 2010 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0What rights did the UK have to remove the garrison. Erm, those rights are well established. Please don't play dumb. You know exactly on what basis Britain protested and then removed the garrison. Even so, the most important thing is Britain gained control and BsAs did not. The matter was settled in 1850.
Just to paraphrase your own words: Argentina could have all the claims that it wanted, but it does not mean that they were really legitimate.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!