MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UN Court ruling props “self determination”, contains “territorial integrity”
An International Court of Justice ruling, that Kosovo (in the Balkans) did not violate international law when it claimed secession from Serbia in February 2008, may have implications for territories caught in territorial sovereignty disputes such as Gibraltar, it has emerged. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesDoes anyone know which Russia five EU states support Belgrade's position, and which twenty EU states are in favour of Kosovo's independence?
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well well this is a turn of the books! If I read that correctly Territorial Integrity cannot take precedence of even apply to countries or territories who so desire to have an act of self-determination.
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if ex Foreign secretary Taiana would be so kind as to eat his own words:
“if we were to recognize Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously threaten our chances of a political settlement in the case of the Falkland Islands, Kosovo's declaration of independence breaches an obligation to respect the territorial integrity of Serbia, the obligation of peaceful settlement of disputes and principle of non-intervention. The resolution has no legal basis in the principle of self-determination,”
I give it a very short time before the the Malvinist's try to play down the significance of such a ruling.
Bang goes Territorial Integrity card! Looks Argentina is left with the flawed and faulty history :)
Paul in answer to your question: Spain, Greece, Romania, Cyprus, Slovakia.
The rest of the EU have all recognised Kosovo.
No surprise with Greece, Spain and Cyprus who all have irredentist claims and issues with significant autonomy movements, Romania because they hate Albanians, and Slovakia because they are just bitter at being kicked out by the Czechs.
Forthcoming victory for the Falkland Islands. Hurray!!!
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-determination overrules territorial integrity, although how an archipelago can be integral to a mainland state escapes me.
Rule Britannia (and her Overseas Territories). Right all the time!!
Its not just Serbia and Kosovo.
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina supports China over Taiwan and Tibet.
For the same reason but respects human rights...allegedly.
either way this will prove argentinian claims over the falklands to be nul and void,, so the falklands can remain british, for the time being at least, ?
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I note the article mentions Spain's Basque country, although it was Gibralter that concerned it the most. Russia still has some Japanese islands from the Second World War and China has Tibet ..... I too wonder who the other EU nations were that supported Belgrave ?
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I look forward to reading the judgement in full (with pro and dissenting Judges arguments - it's life, but not as we know it Jim:-)
besides my spelling sometimes i also am interested in the british point of view,
Aug 03rd, 2010 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can find a full list of the countries that do/do not recognise Kosovan independence at the ever helpful wikipedia at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_reaction_to_the_2008_Kosovo_declaration_of_independence
Aug 04th, 2010 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The main Argentine argument, that of territorial integrity, appears well and truly to be in the dustbin now!
Thanks ... a barrister's opinion? Please don't send a bill :-)
Aug 04th, 2010 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha! Ok, but just this once!! It's been pretty quiet on this topic from the Argentine side, hasn't it?!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0THIMC
Aug 04th, 2010 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0How somebody can compare the extraordinarily complicated situation of one of the world's top hotspots, where civilizations and religions have clashed through the course of history, with the obvious situation of some forgotten Islands occupied by servant settlers from a colonial power for the most of their history, at first for the purpose of controlling the maritime routes and now to exploit the natural resources of the area goes beyond imagination.........
Perhaps because your imagination can't cope with the fact that this ruling completely destroys the Argentinian argument?!!!!! The most important point in the ruling is that self-determination trumps everything. This clearly applies to the Falklands.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting ... I note that of the 28 countries that presently form the Decolonisation Committee of the UN, 21 of them have not recognised Kosovo. In other words the supposed guardians of 'self determination' have failed in their remit ..... what was I saying earlier Think? Discredited!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still............ 2.500 Servant Settlers transplanted from a Colonial Power to some Islands don't constitute a “People” or a “Nation”
Aug 04th, 2010 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Come on, Think, you're better than this. There are many instances of peoples settling territories - pretty much the whole of the Americas and Oceania is peopled by settlers. Even the indoctrinated and distorted Argentinian view of the history of the Falklands does not justify the denial of the Falkland Islanders or the Falkland Islands as a people or nation. You either accept the rule of law or you don't. You can't pick and choose and discard it when it doesn't suit your own personal opinion.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0From the Great God Wiki -
Aug 04th, 2010 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ The English noun people (singular ”person”) refers to a plurality of human beings. It has two usages:
1) as the plural of person (in addition to the rarer plural, “persons”) or a group of people (grammatically, a suppletive plural and collective noun; e.g. “some people are...”), or otherwise for groups with particular unifying traits, qualities, properties, or characteristics (e.g. the people of Spain, or the people of the Plains).
2) as a singular for an indefinite ethnic group or nation (e.g. “a people is...”
“ A nation is a group of people who share culture, ethnic origin and language, often possessing or seeking its own independent government...”
Wrong on every count Think, well done ... on top the world this morning ? :-)
THIMC
Aug 04th, 2010 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Front page story, 04/08/10 on the Anti-Kirchner conservative Clarin newspaper!
http://www.clarin.com/politica/Lula-lidero-reclamo-derechos-Malvinas_0_310768935.html
A minimal translation of its “punchlines” for those of you that do not understand Spanish:
“New joint declaration about Malvinas and the protection of natural resources in the South Atlantic.....................”
“The signed declaration includes now not only Malvinas but also the sovereignty over the Georgias and Sandwich Islands as well as their seabed area.............................”
“The declaration, signed by the Presidents of the Six Participant States assumes the compromise NOT to facilitate any activity of vessels which can aid any hydrocarbon activities that affect the rights of the Argentine Republic in its seabed..............”
In short....
As I told you nearly two months ago: No access to our (Mercosur) infrastructure for any Malvinas hydrocarbon related business.
Not strange that MercoPress chose to miss this one :-)
Doesn't matter! Argentina has LOST! AGAIN!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Will Britain take Argentina to the ICJ? For its constant illegal actions!
(15) PomInOz
Aug 04th, 2010 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I do not know you and you do not know me but
From our sporadic communication I have infered that you are not “totally devoid of intelligence”. (and Certainly an infinite better Cricketer)
I hope you have a similar impression about me :-)
My denial of the Malvinas settlers right to be defined as a “People “or “Nation“ is absolute.
(For the “Turnips” in here: Nothing to do with the settlers race or human condition)
Britain implanted them by military force long ago to serve British interests...
Britain has had a military official presence since day one.
Britain choose to keep the Islanders as Servant Settlers without ownership rights on the land or even the right to citizenship until 1982.
Britain showed, again, her “real intentions” about the South Atlantic in February 2010.
Britain is refusing ANY solution that rules out their total control (direct or indirect) of the mineral riches of the South Atlantic.
Britain is trying, as many times before all over their old empire, to “fabricate” a new Nation to serve their geopolitical interests.
Britain is encountering opposition this time. The whole South Cone is (quite rapidly, I must say) reacting against your “Wise Guy post-colonial reversed logic”.
PominOz - you will understand from#19 that Think has a poor grasp of history ... and worse, he is a politician!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no possible solution that involves Argentina. As for exploitation, we are not actually going for the whole of the South Atlantic ... just our bit!
The 'old empire' bit is just an old cliche .... we are restistant to Argentina's unreasonable demands and they don't like it much.
the 'South Cone' won't make too much of a difference ....
One question though, Think ... why should MercoPress 'ignore' this story ... ? Of course all the other english press seem to have ignored it too!
I kinow you are getting frustrated Think ... your Foreign Minister is obviously getting so .... tough!
Kosovo and Malvinas situation would be similar the day bennies declare their independence, as albanians, and UK leave the region as Servia did.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Meanwhile, as bennies stil don´t excercise selfdetermination, dispute is bilateral between UK and Argentina, so territorial integrity applies as the court said in the ruling.
It may be bilateral ... but only because the British Government will leave it to the Falklanders ....... a nation of the future :-)
Aug 04th, 2010 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think: yes, I do have a similar opinion and that's why your posts at 14 and 19 are so disappointing.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Billy Hayes, at 21: self-determination is not just a principle that can be exercised by an independent nation or a nation that wishes to become independent. It is a principle by which a people determine their own future. At the present time, the Falkland Islanders wish to retain their association with the UK for the purposes of defence and foreign affairs. In all other matters, the Falklanders govern themselves with no interference from the UK, including the current oil exploration. (Please do note that it is the Falkland Islands Government that authorises a company to drill (issues the licences), not the Government of the UK).
So, “bennies” do have the right to self-determination, whether it be to continue as an overseas territory of the UK or to declare independence at some future point in time at a time of their own choosing.
My friend; you can´t denny that there is a dispute and that you are british subjects serving british interest in south atlantic.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, only chance that your selfdetermination obtain some credibility in the region & world is full independence; all other options you refer are a make up to prevent status quo to change. Britain must leave if you want the conflict to be resolved and your selfdetermination to be real; if not is a farse. You are trying to use a tool to fight against colonialism (selfdetermination)to support british colonialism; that´s an absurd and against common sense.
(23) PomInOz
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well ....... I am not sorry at all to disappoint you in this specific matter.
Until midst February 2010 the Argentinean situation was quite “locked”.
We had a problem with some “Rich Squid-Squatters” whom we were compelled to tolerate for diverse and well-known historical reasons.
This situation could have continued for ages............................
But.........
Suddenly some “Rich Oil-Squatters” thought they found “Black Gold” and the “Rule Britannia “train began to roll at full steam.
The British ethnocentric disregard for anybody else was all of a sudden clear for one and all in the region.
As a matter of fact... .......
We are not doing much on the diplomatic front........
It is our regional partners that are coming with the best ideas and resolutions.....
Honest.........
Billy. Are you as dopey as you appear, or do you think other people are?
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Find me someone who is currently a “British subject”. Go on, try!
At what point would you expect ANYONE to believe that if the Falkland Islands had full independence and Britain withdrew, that Argentina wouldn't be there the next day/week/month? Probably claiming that the Islanders are not a “people” and have no right to self-determination.
If there is anything against common sense, it is you.
No, the Falkland Islanders are not British subjects serving British interests. The UK Government has steadfastly maintained that it will not enter into any negotiations with Argentina unless the Falkland Islanders want it. The Falkland Islanders are Falkland Islanders first and foremost, but also British citizens by their own free choice.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can understand some of the frustration that I perceive from some of the pro-Falklands posters here, as there seems to be a refusal or, perhaps more kindly, an inability on the part of the pro-Argentine lobby to understand that the Falkland Islands are self-governing. Once one understands the concept of self-governing overseas territories and how they work in practice and, most importantly, if any detractors are able to visit the Falklands for themselves, then they would see that even some of their most entrenched views of the Falklands are so very, very wrong. And I'm not ever going to go into what I think of the Argentinian take on the Falklands' “history”!!
Ooops, Think .... your frustration is showing!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you'd given the impression of having so much patience :-)
“ ... The British ethnocentric disregard for anybody else was all of a sudden clear for one and all in the region...”
But who should we have had regard for? Argentina had withdrawn from any joint approach to oil exploitation. Up to you but why now complain when the islanders continue with the exploration programme within their own territory?
And there's the crux ... Argentina still has to maintain its spurious claims because the alternative would be to turn around to 3 generations of its people (and its neighbours) and admit that the Argentine Government had misrepresented the islands history since the 1940's. Huge loss of face.
Reality is staring you in the face Think. If there's enough oil then the islanders will get rich. Maybe not as rich as if they'd been able to access South American facilities, but rich enough anyway! If there's no oil, then all Argentina has managed is to further alienate the islanders and, as they are the deciding factor, Argentina has mangaed to walk backwards .... well done Think, good set of policies ..... :-)
But you know what's really sad .... we, or more likely our heirs, will be sitting at keyboards in 30, 50 100 years time making bloody comments on Mercopress !!!
If what I am feeling now is frustration then...... I want much more of it :-)
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Absolutely right, Hoytred! Think, your latest comments here and on the “tussac” topic are so outrageous, probably to try to deflect attention away from the fact that Argentina's claim, in international law, is dead and buried, if it had any merit in the first place.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 12:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And, Hoytred, I hope that you're not right about our progeny. I'd hate to think of them missing any seconds of the cricket (like I did the other night!), because they're tip-tapping away on their keyboards, rightly outraged by the crap that it sometimes posted here!!
Me deflecting?
Aug 04th, 2010 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0An unprecedentedly clear regional Agreement has been reached and signed yesterday by six of our democratically elected presidents against Great Britain trying to tap our regions mineral resources.
And you want to focus on a International Court Ruling about the legality of Kosovo's declaration of independence from Serbia?
Me deflecting?
I think, Think, that the focus (as per the article) is on the 'territorial integrity' bit and its potential effect on international law and the understanding of 'self determination'.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The rest is deflection :-)
If you are not british subjects serving british interest; I don´t undersatand why UK (in her name not in yours) is claiming half of argentine continental shelf ; why london still apoints an unvoted governor with constitutional powers; and why your constitution was never voted by you as it was writen in london; etc etc etc.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 01:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What you are calling selfgoverment is the typical colonial goverment; locals taking care of local matters, like any municipality; but britain in charge of the rest.
Yes, Think, you! Deflecting!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the comment, “Britain trying to tap our regions mineral resources”, a perfect example of an outrageous comment and deflection! So, thanks, Think!
(19) Think. Some incorrect propoganda masquerading as fact
Aug 04th, 2010 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain implanted them by military force long ago to serve British interests...”
“Britain has had a military official presence since day one.”
“Britain choose to keep the Islanders as Servant Settlers without ownership rights on the land or even the right to citizenship until 1982.”
These statements are all incorrect. The Falklands has been peacefully settled by a broad selection of nationalities since the establishment of the British Settlement in 1833. These include Brits, Danes, Swedes, Spaniards, Patagonians, French, Germans, Chileans and Argentines. The settlers made their way in difficult times and circumstances, but developed these Islands into what they now are. Some came and went, some came and stayed. There was free circulation between the Islands and the mainland for those who wished for the whole of the period up until 1982 when control became necessary, a point regularly misrepresented by Agrentine commentators.
Military presence has been sproradic and certainly not continuous. During the two world wars there were garrisons here; from the 60's until '82 there was a small detatchment of around 20 Royal Marines; only since the war of '82 has there been a permanent credible deterrent, necessary because of Argentine military agression.
Islanders have been free to own land throughout our history, and many have done so. Whilst post 1980 (not '82) Islanders were given more assistance to be owner occupiers it was always a question of capital, not of legal inhibition.
Not sure wht you mean by the “....right to Citizenship.” Until 1983 Falkland Islanders had their own passports. Only post war did that situation change, so born Islanders have always had the right of abode/citizenship. And of course as you know but have to ignore many of us have been here for 8+ generations.
It is interesting to see how over the months your posts have become less thoughtful and open minded. Pity really.
Ohhhhh...
Aug 04th, 2010 - 01:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm supposed to believe that the British Companies boring in the South Atlantic are trying NOT to find Oil?
Is that it?
Oil? Nah .... trust me, it's just a big sceptic tank for all the crap that comes out of Argentina .... honest! :-)
Aug 04th, 2010 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(35) stillakelper: I learnt pretty quickly not to bother engaging in the historical argument, so don't get sucked in! The Argentines will believe what they want to, but we know better!!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(33) Billy Hayes: I am not aiming any critisism at you, but the points that you make, you make because you do not understand the constitutional relationship between Britain and the Falkland Islands.
For instance, let's take a random constitutional example, Australia (ok, not that random!). Australia has as its head of state Elizabeth II Queen Head of the Commonwealth, etc. This is the choice of Australia - it is not foisted on them by Britain. Her Representative in Australia is the Governor General. In theory, the Queen, through the Governor General, could take over the Government of Australia. However, if that happened, Australia would almost certainly declare itself a Republic and cut all ties with the UK. Similarly, the Falkland Islands, if the UK did something that the Islanders did not want or like, could cut ties with the UK by declaring independence.
The current Falkland Islands Constitution was passed in London by the Queen because that is how laws are passed - both in the UK and in the Falkland Islands. The terms of the Constitution were decided upon by consultation between the UK and the Falkland islands but it would not have become law if the Falkland Islanders, through the Falkland Islands elected Government, had not wanted it to.
The UK claims the territorial are around the Falkland Islands because it is responsible for the foreign affairs of the Falkland Islands and territorial claims are an aspect of foreign relations. However, the claims are made in the name of the Queen “in right and title of the Falkland Islands”, not by the Queen “in right and title of the UK”. And therein lies the massive difference.
well, that´s precisely the problem, “Queen´s presence”; you must understand that in this part of the world there is no place for such a “Queen”. Perhaps your “Queen” is ok in UK or in Australia; but in South America we are reactive to that idea. Perhaps, instead of looking to Australia you must look to USA; another way of dealing with “Queens”.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Personaly I´m not denying your selfdetermination; but your selfdetermination is not absolute, the limits are the conflict; and I think that the only way your selfdetermintation could be recognised is in an escenario where there is no “Queen” and no power over you. The main problem here is british presence.
“ ... Personaly I´m not denying your self determination...”
Aug 04th, 2010 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, the islander's current determination is to remain British ... so yes, you are !
(39) Billy Hayes: I do understand (I really, really do) your problem with what you see as “a little piece of Britain” in the South Atlantic. We all know that this presence stems from Britain's past imperialism, but that is in the past and this dispute cannot be solved in this day and age through force or by the current attempt by the Argentine Government of economic sanctions.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But there is a difference between the Queen of Great Britain and the Queen, as the head of state, of the Falkland Islands. I entirely appreciate that it is a difference that is very difficult to understand, but this constitutional difference is very important.
The Falkland Islanders do not see themselves as Britons transplanted/implanted or whatever in the Islands - they see themselves as Falkland Islanders. The UK sees and treats them as Falkland Islanders with the right to determine their own future. Were it not for the Argentine claim over the Islands, there would be no need for any British military presence in the Islands - 3,000 cannot defend themselves against Argentina without help. The position of the Governor is ceremonial - like the position of the Governor General in Australia. However, even if the Falkland Islands were to declare independence, assuming the Falkland Islanders wanted it, the Queen would likely still be the head of state, as She is in Australia, because the citizens of the country want Her to be.
My friend, you say that the solution is argentina droping her claim, that won´t happen and you know that, I can give you several reasons about this. In the same way I know and you know that you will never accept Argentina´s full claim. So, if your desire of a solution is real we must find a middleground; and for me middle ground is britain leaving the region and bennies achieving full independence. What you are talking about is like a mask where british territorial ambitions could be hidden. I suspect that if britain leaves you could became in a few years in the new Uruguay of south atlantic; in 10 years with a GDP of 1000 millons dollars.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're right. Whether oil is found in commercial quantities or not, I personally hope that the Falkland Islands do become independent someday.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The unfortuante thing is that (as we have seen on these pages) some Argentines would not be happy with an independent Falkland Islands and would still pursue their claim. How then do the Falkland Islanders defend themselves against the threat of another invasion unless it is with the help of an invited military force, be it the UK military (using the Islands as a fantastic training facility) or under the auspices of the UN?
One way or another it is up to Argentina to drop its claim, thus assuring the Islands are free from threat, before the Islanders can feel secure enough to move towards independence.
well, if you wait to became independent for Argentina to drop her claim first, you will never be independent and you will be always subordinated to the conflict and to Argentina and UK agenda.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the solution here, in my modest understanding, is an agreement where in the same act you declare your independence breaking all political and military ties with britain, britain leaving south atlantic, and argentina recognising your new status quo, ergo droping her claim.
I agree with your first paragraph, mostly. What I don't agree with is the implication that the Falkland Islands are somehow subjagated to some hidden British agenda. Britain is there in the Falkland Islands (and I'm talking about now, not 1690 or any year between then and 1982) because the Falkland Islanders wish it to be.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your second paragraph, yes, but, again (sorry!) I disagree with one point and it is also dependent on Argentina agreeing beforehand to dropping its claim by an international treaty between Argentina, the UK and the Falkland Islands.
The point that I disagree with is the necessity of Britain breaking any military ties with the Falklands. It may be possible, of course, but the Falklands, like any country, would still need to be able to defend itself and it may not be possible to do this, like any small country, by itself.
So, it would be necessary for the Falklands to enter into an international treaty with another, stronger, country to provide it with defence. In the short term, this would likely be the UK. It may well be that this would be an arrangement that would go on infinitely - as I said before, the Falklands do provide a great training base - like the British training grounds in Canada or the facilities in Belize.
As an independent country, the Falklands would be free to enter into such arrangements with whom and on such terms as it saw fit to them. Would this still be a problem if it was with the UK?
If I told you previously that I think that the main issue here in this dispute is british presence in south atlantic as a alien power; then take your own conclussions what I think about british military presence.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I wrote here in another topic, the solution for any paranoia in a post agreement situation could be UN blue hats in Mount Pleasant.
But an independent Falkland Islands would be free to enter into an international treaty with Britain to provide defence and so, invited to do so, Britain would not be an alien “power”!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Or, forget that, the Falkland Islands could ask the UN to provide protection and the protecting force could be UK forces, wearing blue hats.
It matters not, either way, does it?
I´m glad, that ordinary people, like you and me, could agree in this matter. I think that it would be a significative step towards normalization if in Malvinas kelpers start talking about ways to solve the dispute; an agreed independence could be a solution.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then let politicians to write the small letter of the agreement.
Billy, yes! I have spent over 10 years living and working in the Falklands and I can catergorically say that independence has been and is being actively discussed and is a real prospect for, let's hope, the not-too-distant future. I don't want to sound biased on the subject although I am!), but it is the Argentine politicians that are the problem - Think, tell me it ain't so!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain, if asked to do so by the Islanders, would enter into negotiations with Argentina over sovereignty, because Britain puts the Islanders right to self-determination first and foremost. It is the (in capital letters!), THE only and paramount principle.
It is incumbent on the politicians of Argentina to guarantee the Falkland Islanders can, without fear from Argentina, declare independence and guarantee their absolute right to live, without any interference whatsoever, as an independent nation if, and only if, the Falkland Islanders choose that this is what they want.
It is up to the people of Argentina, like you (you are Argentine, aren't you?! I don't know and it is of no importance either), to ensure that their elected representatives are aware of your wishes and to stop them using this claim as an excuse to deflect attention away from internal problems.
That is democracy - so get stuck in there and tell them that is what you want!
My friend; independence is your business, as independece was argentines business 200 years ago, don´t ask argentina to do your task; you must talk, you must act; don´t expect argentines or argentines politicians to solve your problems or do your homework. Is your task to show Argentina and the region that independence is a good offer to drop the claim.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ PomInOz. I'm glad you think you've got somewhere with Billy. But let us consider the reality. You are quite right in saying that, if the Islanders want independence, Britain will give it to them. Now move on a day, a week or a month. Which time period do you think would be likely for the Argentines to arrive in force? Probably using the opportunity to announce that the Islanders are not “a people” and have no right to self-determination or independence.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But suppose that enough time goes by for the Islanders to request full membership of the Commonwealth with Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II as their head of state. By Billy's own statements, he, and probably other Argentines, would not accept that. But that would be the right of a free and independent people. So by what right would Argentina have any say? And if the independent Falkland Islands chose to have an agreement/treaty with Britain for parts of the archipelago to be used as a training facility for British armed forces, by what right would Argentina object?
Well, once again (sorry!), yes and no!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, it is up to the Falkland Islanders to raise and, thereafter, to declare independence. Yes, it is up to the Falkland Islanders, given the current Argentine position, to engage Argentina in negotiations to be able to do so without fear of threat from Argentina.
However (and I can't put this strongly enough), it is not the Falkland Islanders' (or any country's) responsibility to show that their independence is a “good offer” to anyone. Ever. Full stop. It is simply their right.
My friend, you are right but remember that there is a conflict to solve, a conflict that exists and you can´t denny; and in this special situation independence must be seeing by Argentina and by the world as an “offer”, so everybody can close the chapter of the conflict and move on towards cooperation and interaction. Independence must be seeing as an offer of a south atlantic “Queen-free” if you want to make a difference with that declaration.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@52 PomInOz. See what I mean? Argentines think that they would even have the right to dictate to an independent nation.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No chance for a settlement until Argentina recognises that all its claims are OVER!!
the word independence make you nervous, isn´t it??
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0why not...South Atlantic Republic of the Falklands/Malvinas??
I'm not denying that there is a “dispute”. But the “dispute” is of Argentina's making. I have maintained that I will not get into the historical argument of the “dispute”. Suffice to say that the UK has offered (on 3 occasions) to take the “dispute” to the ICJ and (on 3 occasions) Argentina has refused - that says plenty enough about how both countries believe the judgment will go!
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to stop thinking about the Queen as the representative of Britain being the representation of Britain (and its imperialistic ambitions in the South Atlantic, blah, blah, blah!) in the Falkland Islands! She (the Queen, that is) is a separate entity.
Please, please, please, read up on the British Constitutional Monarchy. It's there on wikipedia (which so many Argentine's love to paste!).
The Queen is a figurehead for the Falkland Islands, like She is for so many countries around the world. But it does not mean that the UK (Britain/UK - same thing - just in case there are any doubts that they are the same thing!) and the Falkland Islands are one and the same - or Auustralia is, or Canada, or New Zealand.
I want to scream at this point!! Please, if you don't understand how the Falkland Islands works constitutionally, start by “googling” “British Constitutional Monarchy” and then, “British Overseas Territories” and then spending 3 years at university learning British constitutional law, then another year practising it at Bar School, then another 10 years + practsing it in a court of law! Aaarrgghhhhhh!!!!!
My friend, falklands is not a country like Canada or Aus or wichever, is a british a colony, that´s why we are talking about independence.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please don´t try to teach in this part of the world what “Queen” means; we know that perfectly, we don´t need google for that, that´s why I´m talking to you saying that the main issue here is british presence as an alien power; be free, be citizens instead of british colonial subjects and you will see that conflict will be a bad dream of the past for everybody. I invite you to modern world.
In which case, I've taken you as far as I can go on this website! And I am sincerely sorry about that. There was a point when I thought that you might just get it.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A shame, because what you have to say, in the main, is sensible. Really, mate, take some time to check out “British Constitutional Monarchy” on wikipedia. From there, there are a number of links to Britain's “post imperial ambitions”, which include the Falklands. I hope (without holding my breath), that you might be pleasantly surprised. Go on, go for it!
I would be pleasantly surprised when I read about “Falklands/Malvinas free republic constitutional system”; in this part we are a little reactive to that “british constitutional monarchy” you are refering.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ PomInOz. Again, see what I mean? Argentines have been brain-washed for so many years about the “British bogey” that they have a block against anything other than the Islands being alone. And therefore open to takeover. By the way, I must disagree with you on one thing, although you may have said it to avoid confusion in someone's mind. Britain and the U.K. are not the same thing. Britain or, more properly, Great Britain consists of England, Scotland, Wales and a number of small surrounding islands. The United Kingdom is, more properly, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(59) Billy: Really sorry about this, but I've read through your (59) post 4 times now and I don't get what you're trying to say. Give it another go, please.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(35) stillakelper
Aug 04th, 2010 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”It is interesting to see how over the months your posts have become less thoughtful and open minded. Pity really.”
I say:
You must have me confused with somebody else ....
I have, since my first comments, made our points, ideas and objectives very, very clear. They haven’t change a bit......
The only difference I can perceive is that many of the things I wrote two months ago are beginning to take form.......
I would be pleasantly surprised when I read about “Falklands/Malvinas free republic constitutional system”; in this part of the world we are a little reactive to that “british constitutional monarchy” you are refering.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I´m saying..that the main point here is that you are part of that “British Constitutional Monarchy” you are refering; a system used as a machine to dominate and conquest.
Independence as an offer must mean the creation of a new system, outside that british system you are talking..”the Falklands/Malvinas free republic constitutional system”.-
(62) Think: 'fraid to say that (35) stillakelper is absolutely right. You (and I've said this before and can't get away from it - wish I could!) are one of the very few Argentines who do make some kind of sense. Once the judgment of the ICJ was handed down, you have made no sense whatsoever. Take stock, regroup, and try again.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(63) Billy: after all I've posted, all I can surmise is that you refuse to take into account the constitutional system of the UK and its overseas territories. I've given you, as best as I can, the posts to check it out. If you refuse to even look at how the British constitution works then, well, what can I say...?!
I take “recognizance” of how the Argentine system of law works (not my system, but I recognise it), why can't you?
(64) PomInOz
Aug 04th, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lets clear things up.........
I have no idea of the future relevance of this ICJ ruling in international politics.
I have no idea of the relevance you think it will have about the “Malvinas Issue”.
What I know is that, in my opinion, it's relevance is minimal.
What I know is that even if I personally dislike the Kosovo-Albanians, I think that the only realistic solution is Kosovo's independence.
What i know is that I never “Stop Making Sense”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NUjjFETMTxE
Actually, Twinky, what most of us know is that you never “Started Making Sense”.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@63. If the Falkland Islands were to choose independence, you have no right to determine the system of government that they choose.
My friend; is irrelevant for me in this talk how british constitutional system works, also is irrelevant how argentine systems works.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The dispùte here is where Falklands/Malvinas belongs to. If it belongs to british constitutional system Argentina will be claiming and we will have actual situation. In the other side we have Argentina´s demands that Malvinas should belong to Argentina´s constitutional system, you refuse that.
Well; so middle ground is outside both systems; as I told you before I understand that the solution is kelper creating a new system; a new constitutional order exercising your selfdetermination; a constitutional system that could be adjusted to your needs and culture but compatible with southamerican democratic and republican values.
What I know is that even if I personally dislike the Falklanders, I think that the only realistic solution is Falkland's independence
Aug 04th, 2010 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0that's better dont you think think
PomInOz yeah know what you mean about the futility of discussing history, I get the impression that if you constructed a time machine and transported Argentines back to 1834 and personally introduced them to the survivors of Vernet's settlement they'd still claim it wasn't there.
Aug 04th, 2010 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PominOz - I actually think, that if you go back far enough on these pages, you'll find that Think does believe that Charles Darwin was transported back in time by the CIA just to meddle with the 'real' history of the islands :-)
Aug 05th, 2010 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0As far as Billious Haze is concerned ..... if it's got a monarchy then it's bad! He can't get over that point and all the rest - self determination, human rights, free will - are irrelevant!
I also believe that the only future lies in true independence for the islanders, and probably on much the same lines as Australia, Canada, New Zealand. This will not be acceptable to Billy because they may retain a monarch as head of state ... personally I've always believed that a constitutional monarch with limited powers is a lot better than more bloody politicians!
Of course they won't opt for independence whilst being threatened ..... so I doubt it'll happen anytime soon. 22nd century maybe!
Think - ” I have no idea of the future relevance of this ICJ ruling in international politics.
I have no idea of the relevance you think it will have about the “Malvinas Issue”.
Which rather sums it up .... you have no idea! Your Government feared the result and they got the result they feared, which would suggest that they have a rather better idea of the potential consquences.
And not a politician, really? With your sycophantic approach to anything Kerchner I find that quite remarkable!
Not a politician, not a lawyer, not an historian for sure ..... an armchair what, then?
Oh, sorry ... Good morning all :-)
ps. anything changed ?
Justin,Really?
Aug 05th, 2010 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Even British sites agree with Argentina!
www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
'The British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognized by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in South America and the islands adjacent“
”The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811.The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority”
Getting repetitive Marco?
Aug 05th, 2010 - 02:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0I suspect that this web site was set up by the CIA to keep the argument going when sense and reason have long left the field !
I'm sure Think will back me up on that:-)
Sure, you couldn't blame Argentina this time .. that site is from England, your country.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0From yours -
Aug 05th, 2010 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands Will Never Be Argentine
Prof. Carlos Escudé, Ph.D.
Argentine National Council of Scientific Research (CONICET)
Uiversidad Torcuato Di Tella, Buenos Aires
- “ ... It is sufficient to talk to any Buenos Aires cabdriver to understand
that the Argentine people know that the Falkland Islands will not be
“recovered” by Argentina. The only locals who appear not to
understand this basic fact of life are a group of war veterans, a small
bunch of nationalist fundamentalists, and practically the entire lot of
Argentine politicians.
Needless to say, however, in so doing the politicians are cheating and
lying. The great majority of these politicians know that the Falklands
will not be Argentine again, but they choose not to acknowledge this
for fear of losing votes...”
Read and learn http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People
;-)
Also - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People
Yawn, Marco likes to quote a site simply because like many English language websites it isn't necessarily accurate; something the official British historian Freedman notes.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 06:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet's settlement still wasn't expelled - fact. Why does Argentina lie?
(72) Hoyt
Aug 05th, 2010 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0About this quite informative webpage:
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/
You say:
The authors is an Argentine (probably) history teacher ......
Fortunately an obscure web site.......
I say:
Stephen Luscombe, teacher, living in England, author of an enormous page about the British Empire, quoted on many academic circles as a valuable reference site........
Where do you have the idea from that he is Argentinean?
Any real source or just a little bit of Slander against a compatriot?
76 Think
Aug 05th, 2010 - 11:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regards www.britishempire.co.uk
Did you bother to read the authors disclaimer which states and I quote:
“First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance.”
Skipped over this part did we?
It is still hard to come to grips with the total lack of understanding on the part of Argentines.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 11:14 am - Link - Report abuse 01790 - Nootka Sound Convention - Irrelevant. You cannot have colonial “ambitions” toward a territory over which you are already sovereign.
1820 - Jewett - Irrelevant. At the time he reached the Islands, Jewett was, at best, a privateer authorised to act only against Spanish vessels. At worst, he was a pirate, having seized a Portuguese and an American vessel, and therefore incapable of any legitimate act. As witness that, in February 1821, having finally repaired his ship and returned to BA, he was relieved of his command. He then escaped to Brazil where he joined the Brazilian forces for the war against the United Provinces. All facts.
“Falkland Islands, constituted by a group of persons established in the Argentinean territory of the Islas Malvinas, was born from a violation of the international law: the conquest by the force of one State, of a territory under the sovereignty of another State. ”
Aug 05th, 2010 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And your excuse for Chagos islands is?
Quote:“Britain took the Chagos islands from France in the Napoleonic wars and, under a 1971 immigration ordinance, removed the inhabitants compulsorily so that the main island in the archipelago, Diego Garcia, could be used as a US base.”
British history repeats like in Malvinas Argentinas.
MARCO. Don't try to change the subject. Respond to the points made. Of course, you can't. Because the FACTS are history and cannot be changed. Except in one place. The rebel colony of Argentina. Pitiful!
Aug 05th, 2010 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I answered all them, did you answer mine. CHAGOS.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 04:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No excuse for the Chagos Islands, what the British Government did there was wrong and they lost in the court as a result. The fact that the British Government has not fully resolved the matter remains a national disgrace.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So whats your point Marco? Advocating the same for the Falklanders? A Red Herring? I notice it bears no relation to the point put to you.
“Falkland Islands, constituted by a group of persons established in the Argentinean territory of the Islas Malvinas, was born from a violation of the international law: the conquest by the force of one State, of a territory under the sovereignty of another State. ”
Aug 05th, 2010 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That load of bulls**t is supposed to be an answer? Trotting out the same crap that the crap government of your crap country and your crap compatriots on this site have been trotting out for too long. Have you got anything between your ears except propaganda? And would you like to tell us where you copied it from? It's too literate for you.
But let's try a direct question. Is there any part of your country's history, apart from 1982, that didn't end with the glorious victory of the Argentine “people”?
the only difference with Marco [polo] is there is a big whole in his argument, the argentine argument is floored, its called [my truth]
Aug 05th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0or [your truth] your truth is the way the world and history sees it,
My truth is the way Argentina sees it, and as Argentina sees the world in a totally different light to the rest of the world, then they will never really understand the TRUTH.
Justin wrote:
Aug 05th, 2010 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“No excuse for the Chagos Islands, what the British Government did there was wrong and they lost in the court as a result. The fact that the British Government has not fully resolved the matter remains a national disgrace.”
I wiil add:
No excuse for the Malvinas Islands, what the British Government did there was wrong. The fact that the British Government has not fully resolved the matter remains a national and international disgrace.
MARCO. Still no answers, loser. Argentina's claims to the home of the Falkland Islanders is OVER. Argentina - a nation of oral farters!
Aug 05th, 2010 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really, Tom Jones Harrier?
Aug 05th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then why are you so angry and loose your cool all the time?
Loosing the Malvinas Argentinas cause?
I think so.
night is fast approaching, the sun is going down.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0over the horizon, and looks bright red.
so now is the time, to put myself to bed.
goodnight back later
Ohh poor baby, are you going to cry over your British pillow?
Aug 05th, 2010 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think this just shows that there is no way that te islands will ever become Argentine territory.
Aug 05th, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Currently they have us to look after them. If they was ever to go independant they would not only have our support, but the UN's.
Also for people who have said the islanders going independant would mean that we would have to leave the South Atlantic would be very wrong. Having a blue water navy requires us to have bases spread across the world. Just like the US. We never really “owned” cyprus but we have a base there, we never ruled germany but we have a base there, ect.
Morning all - If I could just make one more reference to the Commons briefing note - www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05602.pdf
Aug 06th, 2010 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'd like to point out that what strikes me most about this document is the TOTAL LACK OF PANIC on the part of our Government. Has no-one told them of the disasterous effects of the Argentine economic blockade (on one side of the islands)?, has no-one pointed the 5th-collumnists in our midst (Guardian readers & School teachers), has no-one reminded them that Argentina has the support of Chavez (whoever he is)?
I don't understand it ....... why aren't the British caving in ???
:-)
Hmmmm...
Aug 06th, 2010 - 05:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe because to panic is not a British “thing”?
Maybe because this paper has been written before things actually happened?
Maybe because the following disclaimer has a reason to exist?:
“This information is provided to Members of Parliament in support of their parliamentary duties and is not intended to address the specific circumstances of any particular individual. It should not be relied upon as being up to date; the law or policies may have changed since it was last updated.....”
Anyhow I Think I will wait for the next one and the next and the next and.....
PS:
About Mr. Stephen Luscombe......... I Think that implying in a Forum like this that he is Argentinean goes a bit Beyond British Humor.........
Comment removed by the editor.
Aug 06th, 2010 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think .... are you suggesting that Luscombe is not a very old and traditional Argentine name?
Aug 06th, 2010 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please excuse me, I hadn't considered that suggesting that someone was 'Argentine' was a form of insult ... although then again perhaps I'm wrong. No more perhaps than suggesting that your worthy Proffessor is in the pay of the C.I.A.
Mr Luscombe's version of history is (apart from being irrelevant) rather in line with the Argentine version which, in the face of so much official data that suggests the real history, raises a question regarding his motives. I have the question I do not have the answer. If he replies to my e-mail then perhaps I shall discover something.
Whatever! A web site does not the truth necessarily contain. As with other sites of doubtful origin, Mr. Luscombe fails to cite his sources. A dramatic omission regardless of who, or on which side of the Atlantic, the author is.
For a supposed history teacher it's a worrying way of expressing an historical opinion.
(94) C'mon Hoyt............
Aug 06th, 2010 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poor Sr. Estéban Luscombez website has more than 7000 pages of Empire material.( I love those Punch caricatures)
Malvinas history is marginally mentioned in a half page. Enough to start a “character assassination” and question his allegiance?
Heads have rolled for less :-)
Aug 06th, 2010 - 07:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I quite like your “3 staged regressive” way of backing out...............
Aug 06th, 2010 - 07:59 am - Link - Report abuse 01) My Mom always said........ :-)
2) Cromwellian Moral ..........:-))
3) Biblical citations ...............:-)))
He also states that Argentina was a British creation.
Aug 06th, 2010 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Confucious say- “when in hole, stop digging”
Aug 06th, 2010 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pratchett say - “ give a man a fire and he'll be warm for a day, but set fire to him and he'll be warm for the rest of his life”
Still don't understand that Cromwellian bit?
Number 100 is yours for the taking, I say - “it's all you're gonna get” :-)
MARCO. Slight error in your weak post at (87).
Aug 06th, 2010 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no available evidence that you have ever learned to think!!
I have also sent a message to Mr Luscombe. We shall see what answers he comes up with. But he may be away on one of those interminable teacher summer holidays!
(99) Hoyt
Aug 06th, 2010 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Owwwwww..... The turnips took my Nr. 100... :-(
May I get a pair of Islands instead?
PS: Look what you have done..... By now poor Sr. Estéban Luscombez is surely being (b)e-headed by agent006 !
Heads rolling... very Cromwellian.....
In February 2008, Argentine Foreign Minister Jorge Taiana said “if we were to recognize Kosovo, which has declared its independence unilaterally, without an agreement with Serbia, we would set a dangerous precedent that would seriously threaten our chances of a political settlement in the case of the Falkland Islands”. He said that President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner would not give any official statement on the issue, reiterating that there would be no recognition of Kosovo.[136] Argentina will not recognise also because it “supports the principle of territorial integrity”. Additionally, he stressed that the 1999 UN Resolution 1244 called for the mutual agreement of all parties to solve the dispute.[137]
Aug 06th, 2010 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0In a 2 December 2009 hearing at the International Court of Justice, the Argentine delegation said that Kosovo's declaration of independence “breaches an obligation to respect the territorial integrity of Serbia, the obligation of peaceful settlement of disputes and principle of non-intervention. The resolution has no legal basis in the principle of self-determination,” and that it “did not, and could not, abolish Serbia's sovereignty over Kosovo”.
Well falky .... they would say that wouldn't they! Wonder what they're thinking now?
Aug 06th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0A wonderful comment from Twinky
Aug 06th, 2010 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“On the “human front” we have nearly nothing in our history to be proud of.”
Think claimed that website was used extensively by academic but can't name one. Yet he is still trying to make the most of an off-hand comment but can't back up his own statements.
Aug 06th, 2010 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marco (#)
Aug 06th, 2010 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0are you going to cry over your British pillow?
well Marco i must admit i tried, but sadly you have to be argentine to cry on anyone’s pillow, and as i am British i just had a nice dream,
no tears on my pillow, just argentine tears on the islands lol
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britain-oil-dispute
Aug 07th, 2010 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Falklands are clearly a colonial problem, however much their inhabitants refuse the term colony. Ruled by the Spanish from the late 18th century, the islands would have become consolidated into independent Argentina had the British navy not decisively intervened in 1833. The British presence in the South Atlantic is a relic of time when Europe saw the wider world as an open buffet.”
Well we do not want to be part of your buffet.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britain-oil-dispute
No idea what that last link is supposed to achieve?
Aug 07th, 2010 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marco - you'll find that relying on support from the Guardian will not get you very far here. A second-rate Left-wing newspaper with circulation figures well down the list (on-line doesn't mean much as it's free and outlandish socialist commentaries will always attract attention where somebody doesn't have to pay for it!).
As to your quote - well the Falkland Islands are neither 'colonial' or indeed ' a problem”. Nothing is changing, nothing will !
(108)Hoyt
Aug 07th, 2010 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0First:
You are contradicting yourself about the value of online papers..............
I remember you saying that you got most of your info from the Internet and that you would consider stopping reading the Times if they began to charge for the service..........
Second:
You are supposed to read the material before you dismiss it............
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britain-oil-dispute
This article is 95% in line with your own position and ideas about the “Malvinas Issue”!
The paragraph quoted by Marco was only an “appetizer” to make the writer look like an “impartial” observer.
how will they get there if twinky gets his way?
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/2094
“Hope and dialogue”? The Botox Queen is talking to herself.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Note that Britain offered to repatriate the bodies of Argentine troops. Argentina refused. This now gives Argentina the opportunity to send “relatives” at regular intervals. Falkland Islands should move on this and inform Argentina that dead will be exhumed for return to Argentina. If Argentina refuses to accept them, bodies should be buried at sea ON Argentina's 12-mile limit.
This is a GOOD thing!
Aug 07th, 2010 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0It clearly demonstrates the great British tolerance and justice aspect of our collective personality.
Even K's pishy “deeply Malvinian” cheap shot (written by Palin?) cannot detract from it
(110) - (112)
Aug 07th, 2010 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Are you people aware that you are commenting on LAST YEAR'S “news”?
The referred B.A. Herald article is from LAST YEAR :-)
The Inauguration of Darwin Cemetery and the Families visit took place LAST YEAR....
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/08/31/official-argentina-committee-to-organize-malvinas-families-trips-to-falklan
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/08/31/official-argentina-committee-to-organize-malvinas-families-trips-to-falklan
Good morning.....Wake up boys....
Think - I can't be bothered with Guardian articles from 6 months ago ... I can't be much bothered with Guardian articles at all.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine contributors on these pages really have a false impression of the Guardian. Until coming to MercoPress I can't ever remember reading a copy ... in my life! It is regarded as a left wing newspaper and is not that popular in the UK hence it being way down the table for circulation rates!
Now having said all that, it does get a mention in those recent Government briefing notes I refered to earlier. Why? Because no other British newspaper had made any comment at all.
I rather suspect that the Guardian's on-line success is down to a) Argentine readers and b) being controversial in a left-wing way.
I do find it amusing that many and maybe the majority of on-line comments to Guardian articles are opposed to the message of the article!
:-)
Aug 07th, 2010 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, Cadfael. Whilst I agree that “It clearly demonstrates the great British tolerance and justice aspect of our collective personality.”, the record shows the number of sneaky Argentine incursions on to the Islands. 1964, twice in 1966, 1968 are ones that are documented.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you look back, you will find that Argentina has used its war graves on the Islands to try establish yet another tenuous claim. And even now, 28 years on and despite all objective evidence, they persist. I have no objection to any Argentine inheriting a piece of land 6 foot long, 3 foot wide and 6 foot deep. But their own land. Not someone else's.
Actually even now there are Argentine military incursions on the Falklands, there was an incident a couple of years ago when a farmer tripped over an Argentine special forces group who then bugged out leaving a lot of very expensive kit behind.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeahhhh
Aug 07th, 2010 - 02:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Captain Kirk was in command and Scotty beamed them up :-)
Think, if you have nothing to contribute it is better to keep your mouth shut and thought to be ignorant than to open your mouth and confirm it.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(117)
Aug 07th, 2010 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The very expensive “Kit” left behind by the Argentinean Special forces defeated by the sleepy but heroic sheep-farmer included, according to an undisclosed MoD source:
Eleven (11) Hand-held “Phasers” (on “stun” setting)
Six (6) Klingon Bat’leth curved longswords
Six (6) Vulcan Lirpas (similar to the Monk’s Spade)
There has also been rumors that two (2) “Multikinetik Neutronic Mines” were founded (a “weapon of mass destruction,” that could affect an entire starsystem, destroying innocent worlds) but no official sources were available for comments..........
Yaawn, Think taking the piss, guess he has run out of arguments as usual.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any chance you can back up your ludicrous claims that the BE website is a resource valued and rated by serious academics? No? Thought so.
(120)
Aug 07th, 2010 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Its all truth......
Argentineans special forces are also believed to be using metamaterial invisibility cloaks in their search for Gollum and his “precious ” believed to be hiding in the tussac forests of Lafonia..........
Justin, Justin...
Aug 07th, 2010 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Actually even now there are Argentine military incursions on the Falklands, there was an incident a couple of years ago when a farmer tripped over an Argentine special forces group who then bugged out leaving a lot of very expensive kit behind.”
That confirms my theory, that you get your facts from Disney channel.
:-)))))))
Aug 07th, 2010 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mind you, to be fair, the argentinian goverment should contribute to the upkeep of the graves, if not they would just get overgrown and eventualy disapear
Aug 07th, 2010 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(120)
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some Authentic footage of Argentinean Special Troops training in their secret base at Bouvetøya (Bouvet Island) in the South-Atlantic.
http://www.imdb.com/video/screenplay/vi3656516377/
Dozy irrelevant post. Typical Twinky.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who does take care of their upkeep?
could the argie special forces kill a man? ooh eventually
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9GtVu5WqnQ
why dont you give [bouvet island] its independence,
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Justin, what that heroic farmer saw , were actually SAS training in Stanley.
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V3NB1NOiOt8
Funny as hell........
Aug 07th, 2010 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some green recruits ....
Some officers having a laugh......
A lot of civilian taxpayers paying the bills....
A lot of civilian taxpayers paying the bills....
Aug 07th, 2010 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0for keeping the Falklands nice and safe
just the best, teaching the next best,
Aug 07th, 2010 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0at least they can have a great laugh
freedom isnt it great
130 Marco: Not the SAS, the marines. SAS arent allowed to show their faces. It was a joke they recorded it because the NAVY guys kept saying how easy it was to do shore landings.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think, you keep going on about how bad armys are and how the tax payer pays for them but at the same time you also have an army, as does almost every nation in the world.
I see Marco and Think continue with ad hominem attacks.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0The incident I referred to happened, the RAF scrambles regularly to intercept Argentine aircraft heading into the Falklands EEZ, the Navy intercepted a warship only last year and in 2004 the Almirante Irizar entered the Falklands EEZ to harass shipping.
Where do you get your facts from, PIROOMA
PIROOMA second shelf LOL
Aug 08th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin,
Aug 08th, 2010 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All that is non sense lies in order to justify to have a thousand British soldiers counting penguins at the expense of UK taxpayers. Not to mention that british soldiers die almost every day fighting those taliban animals.
Actually, Marco, what JustinKuntz says is true!
Aug 08th, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I can't remember the actual details of the special forces incursion, but I do remember that some suspicious articles were discovered a few years ago that were highly suggestive of a special forces reconnaisance party.
As for the Argentine military aircraft incursions into Falklands airspace, they happen regularly. Nothing too sinister there, as it is something that all military forces have done to test the readiness of the opposing military forces.
The naval incursions do happen and are more serious, since they have involved Argentine naval forces harrassing civilian shipping in Falkland waters.
In both cases, the appearance of RAF fighters and/or the Royal Navy on the scene results in the Argentine forces beating a very hasty retreat!
(138) PomInOz
Aug 08th, 2010 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0True you say... Just like that... Did you see those Special Forces?... Did you see the expensive equipment?..... Why is it kept secret by your authorities?...... Why did these “Special Forces” visit the Islands..... etc etc etc.
“Disinformation” rumors like that have been circulated in Argentina too ...
We have our “JustinKunzes” that love to believe those fairy tales.....
But our “PomInOz'es ” are not so gullible.........
Ha! Fair enough!
Aug 08th, 2010 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But, in answer: no, no, it wasn't (more in a moment) and I don't know, but like the Argentine airforce incursions, I expect that it was possibly to test the readiness of the British military and/or reconnaisance.
The finding of the suspicious articles was reported and confirmed by the British military. I can't claim that it definitely was an Argentine special forces incursion, but that seemed to be the most logical conclusion that the experts could come to.
The air and sea incursions do occur (the air ones on a very regular basis). However, both are to be expected, I suppose - it is the same game of cat and mouse that Nato and Warsaw Pact countries played during the Cold War.
I never discussed the authenticity of the two naval incursions... they have been dully reported and “explained” by both sides.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About the air incursions: I have heard “rumors” that , in most occasions ,there are no planes of ours on the air when yours “scramble”.
Our “uniforms” theory is that's the way your pilots get permission to burn some extra Jet Fuel.........
That “Argie Special Forces” story smells very very very (did i remember to say very) very fishy....
Justin & Pom:
Aug 08th, 2010 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'd like to hear more about these incursions. Although I have to admit that I have reservations about anything in the Argentine forces that could be called “special” except their ability to run away and their ability to surrender.
First time I absolutely agree wit agent006/ aka. harrier61
Aug 08th, 2010 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They where good at raping and killing French Nuns and shooting swedish teenager girls at the back in the 70's....
A beautiful military tradition British troops keep alive in Afghanistan bombing a wedding party every now an then........
Think you'll find its the Americans who have a habit of bombing wedding parties, the British operate with far more restrictive RoE.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're referring to Dagmar Hagelin, age 16 shot in the back by Alfredo Astiz. Has he done any time for it yet?
Argentine forces have been making covert reconnaissance trips to the Falklands since the '60s. Admiral Lombardo who planned the Falklands invasion in '82 undertook some of the first missions from the submarine ARA Santiago del Estero. In the '70s there were several incursions and not to long ago a farmer disturbed an incursion so they fled leaving a lot of expensive gear like NVG and comms equipment. Ask any of the Falkland Islanders, the British just didn't make a big deal of it.
The air incursions are tracked by Radar, so there is little opportunity for the RAF to “waste a bit of jet fuel”. The FAA plays silly buggers, they head toward the Falklands, then turn away before they can be intercepted.
Tell me Think, what evidence do you have that the FAA are not in the air during these incidents. Any chance you can substantiate such a wild claim?
Any chance you can substantiate any of your claims?
The naval incursions are well documented.
Harrier61,Let me remind you that your powerful military failed miserably in Irak ( and it is now in Afghanistan), leaving in a hurry using the backdoor called shame.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 08:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not to mentioned the brave? “Royal Marines” that surrender in april 2 1982 to a small group of Argentine navy commandos.
(144)
Aug 08th, 2010 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some time ago Argentineans in here were lectured by “Islander1”, a true Malvinense, about the 3 settler civilian casualities of the “Malvinas Conflict”.
We were made aware that, even if it was British Navy shells that killed those three unfortunate people, the responsibility was entirely on the Argentinean side.............
You Brits are allied with the Americans, you Brits request American airstrikes in Helmand province, you Brits are directly responsible...... do not try to dodge responsibility......
Tell me Think, what evidence do you have that the FAA are not in the air during these incidents. Any chance you can substantiate such a wild claim?
Aug 08th, 2010 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any chance you can substantiate any of your claims?
I notice you didn't.
Not to mentioned the brave? “Royal Marines” that surrender in april 2 1982 to a small group of Argentine navy commandos.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Remind me Marco what happend to the Argentine armed forces dug in on the Falklands 8,000 miles from the UK?
You total prat.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine landing force: 800+ Argentines. (Can't bring myself to say “men”.
Argentine support: 2 Task Groups.
Royal Marines: 70 MEN ordered to surrender by the Governor.
I can't stop you typing “Royal Marines” but neither you nor any of your lily-livered compatriots are fit to lick the underside of their boots.
No doubt a tribute to the small amount of Italian blood in you cross-bred mongrels. Italians! Well known for their WW2 tanks equipped with 5 gears, 1 forward and 4 reverse.
Nor did British forces leave Iraq “in a hurry” but in accordance with the orders of their government.
And what does it matter to you anyway? We rather unmistakeably kicked your sorry asses off our territory. Be glad we didn't kick same sorry asses off the face of the earth.
harrier,“Nor did British forces leave Iraq “in a hurry” but in accordance with the orders of their government” Sure, after you got your rear end kicked!
Aug 08th, 2010 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First UK and US, ruled by Bush And Blair(dumb and dumber) invaded a nation based on a big lie ,no WMD found yet, Keep looking!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-417121/Iraq-disaster-admits-Blair.html
Harrier, no point telling him, i've told him this about 8 times. Their small group of commandos bravely stormed a military base, bulliets blazing, shooting thin air. Base was empty. Meanwhile their 800+ force of men lost 2 APC's and their commander to 82 marines.
Aug 08th, 2010 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marco, you should read what he actually said he did not say that we left because we lost the battle, he said the entire war was a desaster, which it was. Iraq and Afghan are not conventional wars they are more alike a police action. We was not there to “shoot the bad guys” our armys purpose in iraq was to train the army, which they did. After which they left, as was the plan from they day they arrived.
As for afghanistan, loosing? i don't see how. 9 years and 300 deaths? hardly a loosing battle. Terrorist deaths are in the 25,000's. Most of our troops have died from IED's not actual combat.
!!!!!!!!!!!!! WHAT A TURNIP !!!!!!!!!!
Aug 08th, 2010 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyhow the date of Utter Victorious Retreat from Afghanistan has alredy been set to 2014.
Britain bites the dust in Afghanistan ... Again :-)
Go Go Go Pashtuns an Pandits. Play Buzkashi with a British Goat........
Always look on the bright side of life
Aug 08th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhLzDC6bLPE
Zhete “our armys purpose in iraq was to train the army”
Aug 08th, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I learned something new thanks th Zhete, the British invaded Irak to train their army, where did you get that?? your sources of information are Disney channel like Justin?
The truth is, that war and full invasion killed tens of thousand of innocents civilians based on big lies, your forces were defeated by insurgents and sent back home, Afghanistan, after 9 years like you said, your forces are digging in a deeper hole everyday.
you guys seem to know an awful lot abt Iraq and afghan, you should not always believe what you hear in the papers, we heard that hundreds of Argentinean soldiers were on their way to help the sad dam and the afghans, but none showed up, i wonder why, the only real thing you should worry abt, is that they are there and not in the Falklands, defending a little innocent unarmed island against a bully, but it seems the forces we do have their, small as they are, seem well and truly able to stop you from doing anything silly, or you would have tried by now, [would you not]
Aug 08th, 2010 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Briton, the irakis did not need any help to defeat your forces and to send them back home like Buenos Aires people did in 1806/1807 in your failed invasions.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0154 Marco:
Aug 09th, 2010 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are an idiot. We invaded to get rid of saddam(wrong reasons, yes). After the initial invasion(which was a force of around 40,000). Most of this force was withdrawn, and the British army was tasked with training the army up so that we could leave as soon as possible.
Likewise in afghanistan the british army is tasked with patrolling one region while training up their army.
152 Think: It was never ours or US' intention to stay there forever, it wasn't a territorial war. A planned withdrawal four years into the future is hardly “biting the dust”.
Massive difference between retreat and withdrawal. In 82 you guys had to retreat because you was forced to. Our forces are leaving in four years, ad their own pace.
zethe,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are a liar. Your excuses: get rid of Saddam, weapons of mass destruction, to train iraki army... all lies. The reality that the whole world knows: UK forces were defeated for a few insurgents, WMD were never found, British Petroleum gain great deals with the blood of tens of thousands of innocents civilians.
Great job UK!
I said in my last post that the reasons were wrong, read it again.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK military deaths were in the initial invasion, not when they left. Our mandate that the iraq government gave us ran out. There was only like a thousand troops there and they wern't in combat operations(Which i just told you)....
There was even a ceremony when they passed over the base to the americans. Hardly running away.
Loosing a battle is generally having to leave because you do not have the ability to stay in that place, like the 82 war, when our troops come home it's because it's planned, not forced.
It's also quite amusing having an argentinian try to insult our military. Have you ever read up about South Georgia? You have the privilage of being the only nation in the world to have a navy warship almost destroyed by infantry.
22 marines took out a warship and a helecotper with small arms and 2 RPG rounds. Stood against hundreds of your troops. Then the british commander walked across the battlefield to tell your commander than his men would keep fighting unless they agreed to his terms(safe passage home), and your commander agreed.
Those marines came back to retake the islands.
Zethe,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Our mandate that the iraq government gave us ran out”
Yes of course another UK lie, US and UK put that Gov.into place , one way or another, you guys were in charge not the Irakis!, you decided to get the hell out of there when the things were looking very ugly.
About your little heroic story in Georgias Argentina, I can tell you that I opposed that war long ago and my drunk dictator. I could go on and list 7 major british sunk and many other badly damaged by very old planes, but in order to show respect for dead and injured in both sides I will not do.
Malvinas Argentinas.
@zethe,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey man when you stop dreaming?
Your Army is a crap today you cannot fight back even a riot in Brixton .
Haha decadent britons cannot realize how bad they are.
Can someone tell them that its the time to wakeup please?
Your Army is a crap today
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well praise indeed, from the country that lost the last war it was involved in ,thats if you dont count the dirty war,killing your own people,if we get as crap as your army then we will start to worry
Nearly Forgot you bottled out a war with Chile
“Go Go Go Pashtuns an Pandits. Play Buzkashi with a British Goat........ ”
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0So, Think, you support a bunch of terrorists, who don't believe women should be educated, stoning to death is an appropriate punishment for adultery and generally returning the country to the Middle Ages is a good idea. Not to mention providing sanctuary for terrorists to plant bombs to murder people for doing unislamic things like dancing.
'nuff said.
I'm not talking about Israel!!!
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go Go Go Pashtuns, Pathans and Pandits
Four more years and they are out of your Country
I wonder what we'll do with those battle hardened troops once we've no middle east involvement? Anyone fancy a punch up :-)
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0NicoDIM - we don't let the army deal with a protest in Britain, that's the job of the police. Historically we found the army too vicious for that sort of conflict. Better to keep troops occupied on other peoples territory :-)
Now, in a feeble attempt to get back to the subject matter. A hypothetical scenario.
On January 1st 2011 MercoPress announces that the Falkland Islands Government has declared independence from Britain. At the same time the UK announces that it will recognise the Falklands as a new nation. Also announced is a Defence Treaty between the FIG and the UK whereby the UK committs to protect the islands independence. A trade pact is also announced.
Now, and with reference to the article above, what will Argentina do?
I can not tell you about your “hipotetical” Malvinas scenario from above.......
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0But what I can tell you, with 100% certainty, is what those “hardened troops” will do............
They will increase the crime, suicide, drug abuse and homelessness statistics in an exponential way.
No amount of tin medals, red poppies or remembrance days will circumvent that...
Think - we've coped with disenchanted troops for over 1000 years and to some extent you are correct. It's normal. We've generally found that its best to keep them active :-)
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your response to my hypothetical question is rather 'wimpish' !
No more debate about Malvinas hypothesis for me in here,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0No more debate with “Turnips” for me in here,
We are tackling reality now... and it’s working...
Speaking about “reality”.... It will be fun to follow “Rockethopper” the next many weeks..... After yesterdays article on the Times, a pair of annalists are asking to see the result papers of “Sea Lion” .
Would be funny if.......
We are tackling reality now... and it’s working...
Aug 09th, 2010 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sure is, Monday morning and the Falklands are still British :-)
@166 Twinky “hipotetical” What's that? Some sort of African mammal? And I see you encourage terrorist insurgents to kill British troops. Coming out of the closet, are we? But why not encourage them? Plenty of reports of Al Qaeda fund-raising in South America. And, of course, although they aren't honest enough to stand up and fight, the Taliban do seem to know more about fighting than Argentines. How many PoWs did we give you back? Around 12,000, wasn't it? Incidentally, British withdrawal from Afghanistan will be based on the situation on the ground. 2014/5 is only an aim.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0MARCO. I notice that you don't deny that the Royal Marines were outnumbered by at least 10 to 1. And still only surrendered when ordered to do so. And were part of the Task Force that retook our territory from your lily-livered lot.
As far as Iraq was concerned, I figure WMD was a better argument than “Saddam is a nasty piece of work who murders his own minorities”. But then your country's governments have a history of murdering people, don't they? Notice that British troops in Iraq moved from patrolling in full combat equipment to patrolling in minimum equipment and berets. Something your lot didn't even dare do on the streets of Stanley. As local Iraqi government took control, British troops shifted focus to support and training of local security forces. I notice that 4 South American countries sent troops. I also notice that Argentina didn't dare. But, unlike Argentines 20-25 years before, British troops were never defeated. 12,000 Argentine PoWs, remember! 100 aircraft, remember! 1 light cruiser, 1 submarine, 2 transports sunk or abandoned, remember! I'll give your pilots some credit for bravery, even if they did lose every time they had to face British combat aircraft!
Remember your pal Twinky's comment “We have nothing in our history to be proud of”. So true! And there still isn't an Argentine fit to lick the boots or kiss the asses of British troops!
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/41655
Aug 09th, 2010 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Yes of course another UK lie, US and UK put that Gov.into place , one way or another, you guys were in charge not the Irakis!, you decided to get the hell out of there when the things were looking very ugly.”
Aug 09th, 2010 - 11:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0The iraq war never got ugly....103 deaths over several years isn't even classed as a major conflict.
Also, the majority of the deaths were with the invasion force in the first three years. In the last two years we spent in iraq only five people died(one in the last year).
The iraq have their own government, and when the US leaves in a year or two they will be in full controll of their own nation.
161 NicoDin: You shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.
@ harrier61
Aug 09th, 2010 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Harrier’s performing live at Gran Rex Bue featuring JustinKuntz (bass) Stick up your junta (Guitar) & Hoy (Drums)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GXVTmBqKV4o
@zethe
“NicoDin: You shouldn't throw stones when you live in a glass house.”
Are you talking about UKI perhaps?
Yeah you are right look what happen to you in Afghanistan but you don’t learn the lesson yet.
Be careful with your stones you never know when someone can throw to you a big rock in return.
Always have that in mind and you will see how many embarrassing troubling situations you will save to be in.
Keep making music, you were quite good some time ago.
And Nicotine playing with himself
Aug 09th, 2010 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yeah you are right look what happen to you in Afghanistan but you don’t learn the lesson yet.”
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok...What happened? I don't understand where your idea of loosing a battle comes from, in 82. you lost, you was forcably removed from the islands. In Afghanistan is this happening to us? no. Have be been forced from our bases? no. have we been overrun? no. Are we having more deaths than kills? certanly not.
Go Go Go Pashtuns an Pandits. Play Buzkashi with a British Goat
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-10907188
Nice freinds you keep Think
Saddam in Irak was a close ally of the USA and UK, they did not care about the atrocities that they commited, like using poison gas, rape, torture and murdered. Same situation with Afghanistan, they were armed and train by these countries to fight the Russians, they did not care about the same atrocities commited for this people. However when they need to invaded for their oil or loose the war badly like the British, suddendly they remenber how bad and horrible these people are.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0PATHETIC LIARS.
Hey harrier the brits never surrendered?
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Surrender.jpg
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:British_Surrender.jpg
USA and UK, they did not care about the atrocities that they commited, like using poison gas, rape, torture
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To be fair we didnt intervene when the Argies were doing it to its own people
Trouble with things like NicoDim are that they are short on intelligence! It is not a requisite for Argentines and their government ensures it stays that way. Let's not forget the comic strips for Argentine secondary schoolchildren to ensure that they “understand” the government version of history.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But let's turn to Argentina's economic “recovery”. We'll make it easy by keeping the figures down to a minimum. Some years ago, Argentina went around borrowing millions of dollars. Five years later, it agreed to pay back $0.31 for every $1.00 borrowed at a lower interest rate and over a longer term than originally agreed. This amounts to theft. Since 2001, Argentina has been living on that stolen money,buying consumer goods and passing out supposed “pay increases”. But it can't last forever. And now Argentina wants to play with the “big boys”. The ones whose rules include “your money or your country”. How long before either China or India is effectively running the country?
Some how harrier my link was changed, let's try again
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.patricios.mil.ar/images/secciones/rendicion_inglesa1.jpg
Marco you are the weakeast link goodbye
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0or should that be missing
I am just try to show how outnumbered you were like you said, in that pic is 3 brits to 1 arg., you are right!
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Arts/Arts_/Pictures/2007/06/14/falklands.jpg
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who left them there?
Go Go Go gentile Pashtuns, Pathans and Pandits. P
Aug 09th, 2010 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0lay Buzkashi with a British Goat
You have been trained by the best.... and the best are with You
177 Marco:
Aug 09th, 2010 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So let me get this right, in one statement(according to you) we've lost the war, stolen their oil while loosing the war, and convinced the people who we lost the war with to fight the russians who we aren't even at war with?
Your idiocy knows no bounds. Most of the stuff you come out with doesn't even make logical sence.
Zethe,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Saddam in Irak was a close ally of the USA and UK, they did not care about the atrocities that they commited, like using poison gas, rape, torture and murdered. Same situation with Afghanistan, they were armed and train by these countries(US AND UK) to fight the Russians, they did not care about the same atrocities commited for this people. suddendly they remenber how bad and horrible these people are.
PATHETIC LIARS.
Go Go Go gentile Pashtuns, Pathans and Pandits.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Play Buzkashi with a British Goat
You have been trained by the best.... and the best are with You
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6a8_Hd4he_8
Now I got it right!
MARCO @ 180 & 182. Oh yeah, 3 disarmed Marines and 1 argie with a weapon! Want me to find you pics of you argies surrendering, in thousands?
Aug 09th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0like using poison gas, rape, torture and murdered. Same situation with Afghanistan,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina circa 1976
Just a reminder that before the distraction tactics were deployed, the article is actually about the ICJ decision which fatally holes the Argentine claim below the waterline.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just like the Belgrano.
Equally hypocritical, that Kosovo couldn't declare independence without Serbian permission. In which case, how come Argentina could declare independence without Spanish permission?
Cue more distraction tactics, ad hominem attacks, a spot of racism directed toward the British and the cry but “thats different 'cos we say so”.
BTW any chance Think could substantiate his claim that the BE site is a valuable academic resource endorsed by prominent academics?
Any chance that Think can substantiate his claim that the FAA have had nothing in the air when the RAF has scrambled?
Come to think of it, hah, has he ever substantiated anything? What do you think?
And Marco.
Avoiding the awkward question - How can you settle your differences and leave one outstanding?
Any chance there will be an anwer?
Nope, cue more distraction tactics, ad hominem attacks, a spot of racism directed toward the British and the cry but “thats different 'cos we say so”.
And hijack the next thread to preach the Argentine gospel and how the world has wronged them, nothing is ever their fault and it was always someone else's fault, we coulda been a contender etc etc etc.
Good point Mr Kuntz, and just like the Belgrano they'll be whining about how unfair it is. So unfair that in a war situation a warship of theirs should be sunk by the enemy... so terribly unfair... so unfair that self determination trumps territorial integrity... so unfair...
Aug 09th, 2010 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MARCO
Aug 09th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know you'll enjoy watching this!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhLzDC6bLPE
and this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhLzDC6bLPE
and this is especially good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhLzDC6bLPE
You mustn't miss this:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhLzDC6bLPE
Might pop in to see this,do you want a piccy marco
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.aviationmuseumguide.co.uk/museum_flixton.php
Harrier: That first video is funny, when the sarge tells the gurkhas there will be no fighting that gurkha doesn't look happy about it lol
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cosford_Pucara.JPG
Aug 09th, 2010 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cosford_Pucara.JPG
Pity the SAS destroyed so many we could have more in the museums
OK, Justin, I already responded with facts, stop watching Disney channel and keep looking for those argentinian commandos in Malvinas, ask that heroic farmer for help.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Harrier, do not waste your time I do not watch your videos.
Stick , I am so glad that you keep some of our planes from 1982, that will remind all the british people that with those prehistoric planes we sunk or badly damaged so many powerful? ships of the british royal navy. We also have in our museums plenty of british flags captured after the surrender in 1806 and 1807 in Buenos Aires, do you need one?
Marco,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Crap you have consistently avoided any facts whatsoever. As I confidently predicted avoiding the issue with an ad hominem attack.
How can you settle your differences and leave one outstanding?
Are you a pussy or can't you face the unsettling truth?
Justin, before I do that for you again, did you talk with that farmer?...
Aug 09th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am beginnig to think that you are that heroic farmer with a few drinks on you...
By the way did you keep that expensive equipment?
Please return it.
“prehistoric planes”
Aug 09th, 2010 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some of your planes were newer than the Harrier...and failed HORRIBLY against them. The most ironic thing about this was several years before we wanted to sell you the harrier(back then you was a heavy british weapon buyer) and you told us it was useless.
Harrier; 1969.
Skyhawk: 1956
Mirage III: 1961
IA 58 Pucará: 1975
Nesher: 1972
Super Étendard: 1978
By all means Marco you should have won, but you just were beaten by a better more experenced force against all odds. You failed terribly.
some of you argies really talk from the bottom don’t you,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you have no idea what happens when a government collapses and death and destruction is then the norm,
the people of Iraq will have to live with this horror until they create order, [and they will] good always beats evil in the end, all you lot have to decide is which end will you be, [good] or [evil]
Zhete, You forgat to mention the brand new BAC Camberra,the incredible AeroMacchi, and the supersonic Pucara...please don't make me laugh.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well put it this way, as we are getting rid of a few tornadoes why dont you buy them.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it might help you
I didn't forget anything. BAC Camberra's was only 10 years yonger than the harrier, pretty good aircraft if you ask me, you guys lost less of them than your other aircraft. I believe we only retired ours a few years ago.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The pucara was created after the harrier. Infact you just started texting it the year we started using the harrier.
The point remains that the mainstray of your airforces were newer than ours, and not prehistoric like you said. And your aircraft still lost terribly in battle.
There is a difference between old and rubbish equipment, Ours was older but the harrier is a truly outstanding aircraft, unique untill the new JSF comes out.
Fact is we had less numbers, Horrible logistic issues(so bad that logistics almost won the war for you) less aircraft and while you had years of planning we had two weeks before the day you invaded untill our fleet set out.
You guys failed really badly, quite embarrasing.
We failed, but we gave you a nice kick in the butt too.
Aug 09th, 2010 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That happen long ago, now that my dictators are dead or in jail we are winning the battle without firing a single shot.
“From the standpoint of Sun Tzu’s philosophy of war, the Mahatma Ghandi is among the greatest warriors of all time . Sun Tzu said, “Attaining one hundred victories in one hundred battles is not the pinnacle of excellence. Subjugating the enemy’s army without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence.” Gandhi defeated the most powerful empire on Earth, the British Empire, without firing a single bullet, and he was the pinnacle of excellence”
what a load of crap, ghandi was NOT a warrieor, and in the first world war he was a first aider, he did not defeat the empire, as you say,
Aug 09th, 2010 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0he mearly prodused a peacefull solusion, as you will not understand, the british find it hard to kill inocent people, [unlike you lot]
yes he was a good man, but certainly no warrier, and ghandi, his legasy was not the british empire, it was the break up of india, and the deaths of millions, something he did not want, but got, [next hero]
Hey Axel,
Aug 10th, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not sure if you have read on this thread as well, but the other article has closed for comments, after clocking up a record number of comments. Anyway, I was just going to ask whether you will ask for our views in your survey too? The whole thing sounds very mysterious to me. I mean, it will take months to complete, you've got a long list of 'experts' on the topic lined up, and you already seem to know the outcome of your survey. Are you sure you are not a friend of that great penguin scientist Mike Bingham?
Have fun now....
Briton, i think he actually believes the stuff he comes out with, quite sad really.
Aug 10th, 2010 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0The empire fell because we was broke after so many wars, and with the coming of democracy it was just not feasable to keep the empire going. As a nation we prefered democracy and one can not have both an empire like we had and democracy.
How could we fight the Nazi's while also forcing our government over other countrys? when we went into ww2 we made the choise between empire and democracy.
What about all them Mercedes Benz G-wagens, kindly donated by the Argentinians in 82? And is it true that when we tried to get parts for them, Mercedes insisted we pay for the vehicles first as the Argies were throwing the reminders to pay the bill into the bin unopened? (You just can't trust some people).
Aug 10th, 2010 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0@194 zethe. Was good, wasn't it? I live not far from the main Gurkha base in the UK. The word is that the Gurkhas wanted to “blood” their kukris, but the argies “faded” too fast! A couple of interesting facts. Once a Gurkha draws his kukri, he can't put it away again until its drawn blood. And a single stroke from a kukri can take a head right off!!
Aug 10th, 2010 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@196 MARCO. Don't be so chicken!! They're only videos. Not Gurkhas!!
@204 MARCO. Isn't true that you lost over 100 aircraft, 1 light cruiser, 1 submarine and 2 transports. Then there was your 12,000 PoWs, not counting senior officers. You really should watch those videos, particulary the one of the argie lieutenant leading his men.
Yeah, after three of them got shot in afghanistan recently by a rogue afghan officer while they were sleeping i believe, few weeks later another gurkha chopped off a terrorists head. They don't mess about. Loyal to the end.
Aug 10th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was reading a story about them learning to jump from planes in ww2, their sarge said “we would prefer it if we could jump from a lower altitude” after the it was explained to them that at a lower altitude their parachutes would not open he said “oh, no-one mentioned parachutes”
as you say, we gave the empire back to the people, a commonwealth of nations, now that is what you call GREAT, no other empire in the history of the planet has done that, and argentina still wont get the falklands,
Aug 10th, 2010 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mm
Oh! The supper Brits again, can someone give a handkerchief to captain Alan West please?
Aug 11th, 2010 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0He is still missing his ship.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoWjHh1co&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoWjHh1co&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoWjHh1co&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoWjHh1co&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoWjHh1co&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JtuoWjHh1co&feature=related
Haha very funny the radar balloons haha Brit cutting edge technology wow!
While the Argentine “contributors” crow about their defeat in the Falklands War may I just remind everyone that the article is actually about an ICJ decision which kicks Argentina's claims squarely in the bollocks. Lets not indulge the war mongering psychos anymore than we have to eh?
Aug 11th, 2010 - 08:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lets also not forget the hypocrisy in the Argentine position, that Kosovo couldn't declare independence without Serbian permission; completely forgetting Argentina declared independence without Spanish permission.....
Ignore the distraction tactics, ad hominem attacks, the usual naked racism directed toward the British/Falklanders and the cry but “thats different 'cos we say so”.
Any chance Think could substantiate his claim that the BE site is a valuable academic resource endorsed by prominent academics?
Any chance that Think can substantiate his claim that the FAA have had nothing in the air when the RAF has scrambled?
And the competition for today, name anyone claim that he has ever been able to substantiate.
And Marco.
Avoiding the awkward question - How can you settle your differences and leave one outstanding?
Any chance there will be an anwer?
Nope, cue more distraction tactics, ad hominem attacks, a spot of racism directed toward the British and the cry but “thats different 'cos we say so”.
And hijack the next thread to preach the Argentine gospel and how the world has wronged them, nothing is ever their fault and it was always someone else's fault, we coulda been a contender etc etc etc.
Now carry on...as usual. The Brits/Falklanders providing reasoned argument and the Argentines ranting/foaming at the mouth and warmongering.
212 NicoDin: We aren't scared of loosing ships to achieve our goal, bit like Argentina...oh wait, im thinking of someone else.
Aug 11th, 2010 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0only a bad loser screams the loudest,
Aug 11th, 2010 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and boy does argentina scream [or cry]
Dont cry for me... argentina....!
Aug 12th, 2010 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0212 NicoDin (#)Oh! The supper Brits again
Aug 12th, 2010 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0boy why are we popular on these blogs .
these Argentinean moles must really envy us lol
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!