MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Uruguay bans docking permit to Royal Navy vessel heading for the Falklands
HMS Gloucester, the Royal Navy South Atlantic patrol was banned from entering Montevideo for supplies and fuel, just a few hours before docking and in spite of having been authorized several days before to call in at Uruguay’s capital port. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules” ... Mercopress UK defence and Falklands’ sources point out that the sequence of events was different to that published in Montevideo, but do not wish to be involved in “an non conductive argument”.'''
Sep 21st, 2010 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what was the true 'sequence of events'?
I think it's perfect
Sep 21st, 2010 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uruguay, Chile and Brazil recognize our sovereignty, it is time to act according to what they say
JPL
Chile are currently unhappy with Argentina over the extradition issue and Brazil has just signed a defence treaty with the UK .... and you think it's 'perfect'. Beware politicians JPL, they'll confound you every time!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0No reports of a fuelless ship floating around the South Atlantic I note :-)
I have to admit that Mr. Think brought this news long time ago.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0” ... Mercopress UK defence and Falklands’ sources point out that the sequence of events was different to that published in Montevideo, but do not wish to be involved in “an non conductive argument”.'''
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0So what was the “different” sequence of events'?
A non unanimous descision, not exactly what I would call solidarity. The RN can also call into Brazil and vessels connected with the (now commercially viable) oil exploration are free to port in Brazil. Now correct me if I am wrong but these actions appear to suggest that support for Argentina is as the Argentine government says it “a guesture”!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how long Uruguay will continue this after they have just complained about damage to their own business after a refusal of innocent passage to fishing vessels sailing from the Islands?
(6) Beef
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Brazil:
”Free to port in Brazil” you say.
Aren’t you forgetting something?:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/16/brazil-denies-and-will-not-accept-contacts-with-falklands-oil-industry
Uruguay:
Who complained?
”The incident was considered “very serious” by Uruguayan agents and chandlers in the port of Montevideo”
Considered “very serious” by Uruguayan agents and chandlers……
What Chandler? Chandler Bing? :-)
Easy and steady.... old chap.. Easy and steady....
If I understand this aright Uruguay is using this as a bargaining chip in it's ongoing discussions with Argentina and has done so before (Dec 2007)?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just politics then ? Hardly an indication of any lasting trend, i.e. if Uruguay doesn't get some advantage in it's disputes then the next ship that asks will get permission.
Don't you just love politics :-)
Think
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regardles of mercopress articles which contain some words but no actions, there is no evidence that Brazil is preventing the movement of equipment to the Islands.
Like I have already pointed out Brazil is a stopover point for ships moving to the FI and this includes logistics for the oil exploration including the OG herself back in Jan/Feb.
With an established HC industry, Brazil is well placed to provide logistical support and will clearly benefit (££££££££££) as it already is by providng en route port services!
Considering the FI are subject to elements of EU trade regualtions then any trade agreement between Brazil (or Mercosur) will be default include the Islands. As the FI are recognised as a BOT in the Lisbon Treaty then such trade agreements would have to include them. Perhaps this is why Spain does not now support the Argentine position and is happy to have it's trawlers opperating in FI waters.
Up to now Brazil has offered verbal support but has not gone a stage further with any punative actions.
Commerciality of the FI HC (with more to come) is a game changer and we will see what the lure of the £ and $ does to the situation.
JPL = Juan Pablo Leronde, serial nutter and Malvinista in the extreme. We've met before.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0JPL has published documents claiming that the Argentine Air Force shot down over 60 Sea Harriers - which is actually more than existed in 1982. And worse, look up El Malvinense's website if you speak Spanish but don't drink coffee at the same time.
Currently banned on wikipedia for vandalising Falklands articles.
Justin, again with that lie? Show proof of what you say
Sep 21st, 2010 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 060 sea-harriers? jajajajaja, never said that
always trying to discredit the other ...
@JPL
Sep 21st, 2010 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 060 sea-harriers? jajajajaja, never said that
What about being banned from wikipedia?
Beef,
Sep 21st, 2010 - 01:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has a very very strong relationship with Brazil, as well as other latin american countries. But in Brazil's case, they are like two brother nations. The tourism, the mercosur market policies, historical perspectives, they shared a lot of things in common. It is funny not to think about that. Argies and brazilians are like brothers.
The main reason why Brazil doesn't want to deal with falkers is because they have found many sources of oil in Brazil and soon that means competence. It's all about kix!!!Money makes the world go round, silly really?
Regarding chile, they have admited several times that they helped the british army during the Falklands war, but they're not proud of it (nobody would be in any war). They were also under a dictatorship and obviously it doesn't reflect what chilean people thought.
Chile and Argentina have build a good relationship the past decaces. When Chile suffered the terrible earthquake, Argentina was one of the countries that helped them most. And they thanked to all for that, but I doubtly they got any help from the keelpers. And I am pretty sure Argentina and Chile have their major issues to focus on.
To sum up, these conflicts that only happen in your mind don't exist. If I were you, I would make friends as a falker instead of enemies. The neighbourhood (just to give it a name) is feeding up of this Falkland nation (just to give it a name) that only cries and cries like a little baby. It's time to grow up, as a nation.
Peace,
Jefferson
Ahem
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0link?
Certainly www.malvinense.com.ar/bajasbritanicas.html
Same link I published on 30 November 2009, the last time you tried to deny it.
http://en.mercopress.com/2009/11/25/first-argentine-marine-commander-to-land-in-falklands-in-april-1982-arreste
Same article where you were praising members of the military junta that terrorised Argentina as “heroes”. Same article you praised military officers who attempted a coup to topple the democractic government as patriots.
I don't need to do anything to discredit you, you're more than capable of discrediting yourself.
Word to the wise for the editor, Juan Pablo likes to bring in a few friends from El Malvinense to fill forums with abuse, you might like to have the delete button ready.
Wikipedia is not a trustable source. You can post whatever you want
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I suspect that the Great God Wiki is rather more 'trustable' than the official Argentine history of the Falklands, and no - you cannot post whatever you like!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also, I believe the Falkland Islanders did indeed send some aid to Chile following the earthquake. A small nation so perhaps you did not notice?
As for Argentina and Brazil being 'brothers', are you aware that more people are murdered by a close relation than by a stranger?
I was never banned from wikipedia
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0know why?
because they never wrote in wikipedia. Not even know how it is to write on the wikipedia page
what the “banned from wikipedia” is absolutely a lie
Hoytred,
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can post whatever you like on Wikipedia. Sorry but that's true. Just register as a new user, in fact you don't need to register.
And yes, even you can't stand it, Brazil and Argentina ARE BROTHER NATIONS. The latin american feeling of being brothers won't be destroyed by pirates from the ancient world. So dream on...
I don't have to dream .... I can see the reality :-)
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for Wiki .... if you can put what you like how come so many people get banned and their views deleted ??
what reality? It is in your mind!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't know anything about Brazil and latin america so please stop suggesting we are enemies, we ARE NOT, is that clear?
In politics, there is rarely anything that is clear .... you must be young !
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/03/05/chilean-flags-in-the-falklands-fund-raising-for-earthquake-victims
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where the Falkland Islands raised money for Chilean, just to put your fatuous remarks about the islanders into context. Oh and for information I realise the remarks about pirates were intended as a grievous insult but really we just laugh at them, finding them hilarious.
Yes you can post whatever you like, if you post crap someone will drop by and correct it. Usually within minutes.
Brother nations eh? Whatever happened to your call for peace? Soon degenerated into bitching didn't it.
So JPL you weren't banned and never claimed the British lost so many Harriers either? Yeah right.
Policy, everything is unclear everywhere, not only in LA.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, I can create an entry about you on wikipedia, writing that you are the president of an imaginary country... wanna bet?
I hope now it is clear for you that Brazil and Argentina are like brothers and nobody can divide us, even you don't like it or stand it.
Justin:
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The coloboration that refers to fallen British soldiers. I do not cooperate in the study of sea-harrier. I repeat it.
I will not think badly of you, I do not believe that you exist bad intention. I suppose that's just a problem of understanding the Spanish language well.
From my mouth has not gone a single insult, or disqualification. You can not say the same. Never would report as “abuse” comment from another person to think differently. You awarded me things that are only assumptions, or are not true. That speaks for you.
My presence irritates you, and it is you who want me banned from here. To improve the quality of debate should not just talk about the note, and not engage in “prosecution” malicious to me.
Justin, yes I do call for the peace.... what's wrong in doing that?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0welcome mr.jpl; it seems that your presence make some people nervous.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0talking about friends http://bit.ly/9vLK1f nice to see you mr.pepe
justin, you are used to conflicts and you don't see the point that in LA we live peacefully. I just want to make it clear, that's all. Don't treat it as an insult but how can you know anything about Brazil or Argentina if you've never been here? I can talk because I have lived in both countries and they're great persons..
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was Argentina that invaded the Falklands in the eighties, not Great Britain. I don't get it how they pretend to be the victims, when they were clearly the aggressors. Can you imagine if the US invaded Bermuda? Or if Cuba invaded Turks and Caicos? Why do so many Argentines still sympathise with an invasion led by a corrupt, and brutal military dictatorship?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jefferson soul, go for it, guarantee it will be removed.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A little like inaccuracies in Wikipedia in fact :-)
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0riomarcos,
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile and Argentina were under a dictatorship during the Falkland war. People never supported the war, it was not up to them to decide. Regarding your question, I think you choose the wrong country to make an example... “the US??????” he he he ... I have no words...
We all are victims in a war... remember that!
And justin, by the way, raising a flag is not a help. Most American countries travelled and helped the earthquake victims. Face to Face!. THAT IS HELP!!!!!!
“ ... People never supported the war,...”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really!? No cheering in the streets then, no jubilent crowds in the plaza's when the Argentine force landed!?
Lots of people demonstrating against their country's illegal invasion then!?
Well, well ... you live and learn !
There were No cheering in the streets, NO jubilent crowds in any plaza since they WERE under a dictatorship!! That was not allowed!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile, Brazil and Argentina suffered dictatorship governments
Once again, how can you know anything about a country you've never been? from wkipedia?
#33 Mmmm, I've seen the pictures of the crowds cheering Galitieri's balcony call. So you say there were no cheering crows?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't think evern Think would claim that but did anyone else notice the similarity in speech patterns?
Justin, what part of “dictatorship” you don't understand?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why even lie.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_commanders_leopoldo_galtieri.php
“For a brief period, Galtieri became wildly popular in Argentina,”
http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_commanders_leopoldo_galtieri.php
yet in Argentina the invasion was wildly popular
http://www.operationcorporate.com/p1_commanders_leopoldo_galtieri.php
“but in Argentina it was wildly popular: the anti-junta demonstrations were replaced by demonstrations in support of Galtieri.”
The only reason he invaded was to gain public support in hopes we would not take back the islands. The plan was never for an actual war with the UK.
couldn't say it better!!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Back to the topic, Justin and friends... Is now that clear that Argentina and Brazil are brother nations and not enemies?
Thank you
riomarcos and others,
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0can you explain us what USA & UK have been doing in Irak last 8 years?
And last 9 years in Afganistan?
As it´s supposed that they are democracies and should not allow their governments to go to war based in lies and with the strangest reasons.
How do you justify hundreds of soldiers and hundred of thousands civilians deaths?
Clash of civilizations?
Fighting for freedom?
Special relationship?
All in one?
And the measure of success should be....??????
Chinese-owned mines and oleoducts?
Enlight us underdevelopped latinoamericans, please!
A lot of hot air from some newcomers:HMS Gloucester was going to Uruguay FROM Brazil where she bad been on a port visit,the RN largest ship HMS Ocean is also either there or arric=ves shortly for a visit and manoeuvures with the Brazilian navy - with whom the Royal Navy has just signed a treay. So that removes Brazil form the list of JPS.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chile- well our recently departed guard vessel HMS Portland has just been on a official visit to Valparaiso.
Hmmm- only seems to leave tiny wee Uruguay on-side doesn,t it? HMS Gloucester had permission to enter port there for some time- it was actually cancelled by the President personally and privatley to the Britishjust a few hours before the ship was due to dock - now to do that so late is just plain Diplomatic Bad Manners - as well as clearly showing to all in Uruguay and elsewhere that he is told what to do by the Lady in the Casa Rosada - he is not even in charge of his own Government policy!!
As for blockades andeconomic difficulties forced on us by Argentina - please detail them as we are unaware of them! Yes southern Chile has been hit economically by Argh actions in the Straits of magellan, and it now looks like bad news for Montevideo port suppliers and service providers to the S Atlantic fishing fleet as well. So Arg is hurting its neighbours quite well - nothing more than a minor inconvenience to us though, and a gain for us as our port facilities improve so fishing ships in future wont need to go to S America anyway.
Yup - welldone Lady K. keep up the good work in screwing your neighbours!
Your Comment
If Leopoldo Galtieri, who has died aged 76, had any sense of wonder, it must have come into play as he stood on the balcony of the Casa Rosada in Buenos Aires on April 8 1982. A few days earlier, the Plaza de Mayo below had been full of citizens venting their rage against the military government that he headed. Now, in the wake of the Falkland Islands invasion of April 2, the square was full of cheering people.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0His regime, vilified for human rights abuses in the “dirty war” and with failed economic policies, had been transformed into a government that had salvaged national honour by recovering the islands with their population of 1,200. Galtieri, an impulsive man with a liking for Scotch, acknowledged the cheers. He must have thought he had saved the military project and assured his place in history.
To clarify the issue of whether the war was personal war Galtieri, or was a patriotic war of the whole people, look what they said the main political leaders of Argentina:
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ERNESTO SABATO: “Many of us during this administration we have denounced serious violations of our Constitution ... but the problem of the Falklands is any dispute over domestic policy is something that all Argentines have felt deeply, his recovery is a dream who have dreamed all men and women of our land. We must therefore reject the crude sophistry statement by the British Minister of Defense: This is not the struggle of democracy against a military dictatorship has said is the struggle of an empire against an entire people ... ”The Nation 18-4 - 82.
Alfonsin: “This military has the support of the entire country. It is a historical claim to have the consent and unanimity of the Argentine people. ” 04/02/1982 Chronicle.
Carlos Menem: “The Armed Forces echoed the popular clamor and followed the guidelines of the claim: to recover the islands and raise the flag blue and white. This is the way right for the people of Argentina to regain its full sovereignty through the democratic institutionalization that provides for the Constitution. ” 2-4 Chronicle 1982
FERNANDO DE LA RUA: “what we make in the field of battle not to be missed in the offices of the theoretical.” People Magazine 5/20/1982
All your comments about Latin America.... you would love to see us divided but WE ARE NOT
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So DREAM ON !!!!!!
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Chile, argentina, brazil, peru, bolivia, venezuela, colombia, ecuador and the list continues !
YOU CANNOT DIVIDE US FALKERS!!!!!! WE ARE TOGETHER
Arghh, I be pirate beef and I be diggin for black gold in ye yonder Falklands. I be gettin very rich as me good ship Ocean Guaridan be doing sterling work and I can finally pay me wenches what I owe them for thy services. Argggh.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lookinn like me and me pirate hartys be having to call into Brazil more often to move me diggin equipment to those isles. I keep payin they keep lettin us port and drink their rum. Argggh!
Yo ho, Yo ho a pirate's life for me.
No matter what you say or do, you cannot divide the feeling of the latin america comunity.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One continent, one heart, one feeling, 200 years of history!
Need I say more?????
Wow has Sourh America only been on the planet for 200 yrs? And I thought the creationists in Utah and Alabama were nuts!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@33. “There were No cheering in the streets, NO jubilent crowds in any plaza since they WERE under a dictatorship!! That was not allowed!”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You should watch this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SfRg-aetXss from around 6:10 onwards.
We know you lot try to twist history, but this is going too far!
Yes, this is going too far because you can't stand the fact that we are together...
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Copacabana, Iguazy falls, Machu Picchu, Brazilian sunsets mmmmmm
latin america is a beautiful paradise compared to a bunch of penguins in a desert island...
Keep that island but please LEAVE US ALONE, we live peacefully here so don't bother us... And send your ships to South Africa or anywhere, stop crying for help and let us alone, don't mess with LA!
LATIN RULES
LOL! He's actually insane.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one cares if latin america in united or not, get over it.
Jefferson.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is every question to you an attack on South America. The UK has had friendly relations with many SA countries for a long time, it really has been only Argentina that has been the thorn in the side. For as many countries as you say are borthers I could roll out a list as long who are fighting or at the very least have strained diplomatic relations.
It has been shown that there were massive “celebrations” in Argentina when the islands were invaded this really is hard to argue, the television pictures were sent around the world, yes we know it was a dicatorship at the time, but that type of event is very hard to arrange so I can't really accept it could have been a staged performance by the junta.
I hope Uraguay comes round soon and forgets about trying to pander to Argentina, it would be better for all concerned if relations couldbe normalised and Argentina drops claims to FI.
One other point HMS Gloucester is D96 not 97 as quoted.
@Beef: Most latin american countries are celebrating the bicentenial this year and the next. Google it...
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Iguazu Falls (Argentina and Brazil), Cartagena (Colombia), Machu Picchu, Nazca Linesand Cusco (Peru), Devil's Island (French Guiana), Angel Falls (Venezuela), Lake Titicaca (Peru and Bolivia), just to name a few of the most visited atractions ...
So I am pretty sure you are missing a lot of interesting places!!!!
if you were kind, you are welcome to visit us
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!!! NOTHING CAN DIVIDE US!
BRASIL e ARGENTINA são irmãos! Um defende o Outro!
@47 Jeff Frankly, I don't care if you shag each other.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's another example of the lack of cheering in the streets or jubilant crowds in any plaza.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9J-w6wUBFV8
As for “please LEAVE US ALONE” the answer is, “Glad to”. Just leave the Falkland Islands alone. You can't have them. Not now. Not ever.
@Zethee: yes, I am insane and happy with my brothers ...so what?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason is that I am so feed up of people like you who only wants to post negative comments
regarDing the relationship between Latin america, and even worse, forcing Uruguay to take part of this stupid dispute between Argies and Falkers (Notice that I write “Falkers”, not british).
Uruguay took that decision on their own, they were not influenced by Argentina!
And send your ships to other ports, but DON'T COME HERE AND CREATE DISPUTES, WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY STAY IN THAT WAY.
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
Latin America Rules! Rules what? Sit on your bit of land and don't bother other (more intelligent) people.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Would be more than happy to travel across South America but work keep sending me to Korea, Saudi and East Africa so no chance of going to visit any time soon.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good steaks in Brazil and Argentina I hear. Enjoy the bicentenary, have a beer for me!
When I said “Leave us alone” I meant “Leave Latin America alone!”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And don't post youtube links for god's sake, I don't need to look for other sources to express an opinion.
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
This is a work of pure fiction, how do you explain the relationship between Nicaragua & Honduras or Venezuela & Columbia or Paraguay and All of Latin America.
@Beef: if you happened to be here, I'll get you a cold beer in a brazilian beach he he...warm place, warm people, muito tranquilo...
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Alacrity: how do you explain the relationship between Ireland & UK, Gibraltar & Spain, Germany & Second World War ....well If I were you, I would find answers to those questions firstly...
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Jefferson, you say you and brazil are like brothers. Yet you have clearly forgot the history of military and political conflicts between your countries.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Military conflict - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina%E2%80%93Brazil_War
Political conflicts and insecurities between your 2 countries lasting upto the last decade - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina%E2%80%93Brazil_War
You say your brothers yet you have been rivals every step of the way right up until the last decade. Sorry but you are not brothers you are simply rivals that are working together purely for economic, techological and scientific benefits, nothing more, nothing less.
@teaboy2: that's what you want but sadly for you it is not true.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I can proudly say that because I have lived in both countries and I know exactly how people are.
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Let´s say the truth: we are enemies with Brazil.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Any time that we play against them at the Maracaná.
:-)
pd: brits no longer a threat, let´s try at NZ 2012 WorldCup
Jefferson
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have just displayed a vast lack of knowledge and understanding of World Affairs.
There are many reasons for the relationships between UK and Eire. Gib and Spain is also a long standing problem, however Spain signed a treaty hundreds of years ago giving sovreginty to England. Germany and WWII is just plain foolish to even ask.
Why do you constantly refute questions asked of you by deflecting it would be much more productive to answer a question.
@teaboy, sorry I didn't check out your links but one of them captured my attention, There was no such war, READ CAREFULLY!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Empire of Brazil” IS NOT THE SAME AS BRAZIL and “United Provinces of the Río de la Plata” IS NOT THE SAME AS ARGENTINA.
“Europe” IS NOT THE SAME AS UNITED KINGDOM, ups sorry...
“United Provinces of the Río de la Plata” was the original name of the state that emerged from the May Revolution, which was composed by regions that today are Argentina, Paraguay, Chile and Uruguay.
So definitely, there was no such war...
C'mon people, keep on googleing for wars... there are many... c'mon
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
So your saying that the last 200 years of history between Argentina and Brazil never happened?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh and by thet way i forgot to mention the brotherly tiff that you and brazil had in may this year, a result of argentine considering blocking brazilian food exports - http://www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/05/27/Brazil-threatens-Argentina-with-trade-war/UPI-65491274986708/
Not so brotherly afterall!
You may well have lived in both countries and got on well with people from both countries, but that doesn't make both countries brothers, nor does it change historical facts, does it.
Ok, you convinced me to believe partially in wiki,
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this one is remarkable...
”Given the high cost of the war for both sides and the burdens it imposed on trade between the United Provinces and the United Kingdom (OH MY GO, WHAT ARE THEY DOING HERE?????), the latter pressed the two belligerent parties to engage in peace negotiations in Rio de Janeiro. Under British and French mediation, the United Provinces of River Plate and the Empire of Brazil signed the 1828 Treaty of Montevideo, which acknowledged the independence of the Cisplatine Province under the name Eastern Republic of Uruguay.
The treaty also granted Brazil sovereignty over the eastern section of the former Eastern Jesuit Missions and, most importantly, guaranteed free navigation of the River Plate -- a central national security issue for the Brazilians, but also an issue of great interest to the United Kingdom. (HE HE HE HE ... AGAIN I WONDER WHY????)”
Looks they've been involved in any war existed....
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
@55 “And don't post youtube links for god's sake, I don't need to look for other sources to express an opinion.”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thereby proving that you're a totally brainwashed pillock.
Pity you don't know your own history. The Argentine-Brazil War was the one you were losing when Britain brokered a treaty that resulted in the formation and independence of Uruguay.
By the way, the United Provinces of South America (that you called the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata) was much smaller then. Not much bigger than the current province of BA.
I'm afraid you're coming up against people who know a lot more than you do, or think you do.
@Pheel, he he we are enemies at Football!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have to confess you're right. But this enmity doesn't hurt anyone,
Who can't resist a Brazil vs Argentina football match???
And don't forget the excellent performance of the Uruguay Team this year in the WWC!
@Typhoon: thanks once again for your negative comments but I am afraid that we are together and remember this slogan:
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Funnily one can argue that Brazil and Argentina are not close nations due to something that happened more than 100 years ago. Can one say, then, that the Brits are an empirialistic nation in relation to South America due to the sacking they practiced during the XIX century?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Jefferson's soul
You're correct in saying that Brazil and Argentina are brother nations. We even refer to Argentinos as “hermanos”. Yeah, more often than not there's a tint of sarcasm in it. But that Brazil and Argentina are very close politically, is still correct. Raúl Zibechi, a Uruguayan journalist, wrote an article about Argentina's importance to Brazil based on a book by Samuel Pinheiro Guimarães Neto, the current Minister of Strategic Affairs in Brazil. It's in here, I think you'll enjoy it: http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2010/02/12/index.php?section=politica&article=021a1pol
Since 1945, the most acrimonious bilateral dispute concerned the control of water resources along the Alto Paraná basin. In 1966, Brazil and Paraguay concluded the Iguaçu Act, announcing their intention to build a Brazilian–Paraguayan hydroelectric plant, Itaipú dam, on the Paraná River, on the Argentina–Brazil–Paraguay border. The Treaty of Itaipú was signed in Brasília in 1973. However, Buenos Aires feared that Brazil’s project would hinder its own plans for the water resources development in the area. For almost a decade, the dispute soured bilateral relations and hampered efforts to forge closer economic and political links.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks Forgetit87 for your support...
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is hard to understand for them what we are.
@Typhoon: the United Provinces of South America..... he he
That's another region!!!! Sorry we had changed the map many times in that period of time. I was talking about “United Provinces of the Río de la Plata”.... Provincias Unidas del Rio de la Plata, which is ANOTHER REGION. I took from the wiki link your friend sent me....
United Kingdom is not the same as England..., right?
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
@Forgettit87 -“ Can one say, then, that the Brits are an empirialistic nation in relation to South America due to the sacking they practiced during the XIX century?”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And can the same not be said of argentina's slaughter of native tibes during the same period!!
And as i said it was only the last 10 years when you brazil and argentina moved from being fierce rivals to having any significant friendly relations other than trade. So as i pointed out the history of the last 200 years up until recent says that... NO YOU ARE NOT BROTHERS, and still have a long way to go to be that close. Your recent trade spat in may this years confirms that!
@teaboy: WE ARE NOT ENEMIES BABY!!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@stickup: ...and Hitler invaded Normandy....
he he it is funny, most of you guys are lack of valid arguments and started to google for information “Argentina + war + Brazil” he he he he.... silly really?
But one thing you cannot cnange:
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
@71
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forget the great chip war
Brazil, Argentina’s biggest trade partner, responded to the limits last month by blocking the entry of about 500 Argentine trucks carrying apples, pears and French fries earmarked for McDonald’s Corp. restaurants. Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner, 56, and Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, 64, will seek to resolve the dispute during talks in Brasilia on Nov. 18, according to Argentina’s Foreign Ministry.
I just wonder.... why don't you let us (latin america) alone?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What are you insisting on posting negative comments, linking to conflicts that happened 100 years ago in America?
Did you ever think that you can divide us with those silly arguments?
Why can't you stand the fact that WE GO ON WELL WITH OUR NEIGHBOURS ?
Leave us alone please!
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
(70) Teaboy2
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm getting tired of reading about your “only 10 years of friendship” inaccuracy in many of your posts............. So I’ll take the liberty of correcting it…………..
The “New Era” of Brazilian Argentinean friendly relationship started in 1983.
That's 27 years ago.............Feel free to Google it……………
27 years..............Incidentally, the same number of years it took Great Britain to enter into a Union with their best “mates and friends” Germany………. (1945 - 1973)
As I posted in another thread:
”The beauty of the last 25 years of Argie-Brazilian relationship is the steady shift from divergence through parallelism to convergence during the last 25 years.
Today, Brazil and Argentina’s “best interests” are, more or less, the same…………….
My personal evaluation is that, thanks to the British haughtiness about the “Malvinas Issue”,the Islands case can be developed from a little forgotten pastoralist South Atlantic anecdote to an interesting, productive and winnable “South vs North” argument.”
This is quite an achievement, but you are honestly the dumbest person i have ever had the pleasure of meeting on this website.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's saying something.
YOU Are the one without an argument, you state something random then lack the information, links or intelligence to back up any claim so to respond you make another lie and spam the same message over and over in each post which only makes you look even less intelligent.
@TeaBoy, sad but true... keep on googling for more conflicts... one suggestion “Brazil + Bad + Argentina + Reply + To + Jefferson”
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ONE HEART, ONE CONTINENT, ONE FEELING: LATINAMERICA.
I don't know where you're from but sadly you are not able to say that with your neighbours
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
@ 74 Think
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am interested in this “British Haughtiness” can you expand on that please.
@Zethee: Thank you for your warmest regards. As you may notice, I never used insults or pointless resources like you. I post opinions.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just to make it clear that WE GO SO WELL WITH OUR NEIGHBOURS ?
NO MATTER WHAT YOU SAY OR DO!!!!! HE HE HE ...
EAT THIS:
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Leave us alone please!
I didn't mean you think by the way. We all know how you love to spam :P
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British haughtiness
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.latinamericanstudies.org/argentina/swagger.htm
Praise indeed
Oh thank you Zethee, now after 70 comments you finally got my point...
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0a hard task, I thought it could be easier ...
Anyone else who want to post another link to a war that happened 153 years ago and has nothing to do with the MercoPress news? Anyone?
(77) Alacrity
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0With all respect.....
No, I will not “expand” about “British Haughtiness”.....
In your previous comments in this thread you show a considerable preconceptual ignorance about Latin America......
One would expect you to know at least something about your own national character.......
Anyone else who want to post another link to a war that happened 153 years
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Slice of 1833 anyone
@ 82 Think
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is absolutly NO respect in your reply, I asked a very pertinant question and you decide to throw mud (I would use a more discriptive term but refuse to lower myself to your level).
I would also add that your obvious bias against anything outside of the South American continent is bordering on the pathetic.
Also I question your ignorance of “My national character” as you know noting about me or even my nationality.
Ok, let's post links and see who's a bad boy and who's a good boy.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The prize is a dinner with Justin!!! Winner will be announced today!
Princess Diana Murdered Because She Was About to Give Her Support to Palestine
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Princess-Diana-Was-Murdered-Because-She-Was-About-To-Give-Her-Support-To-Palestine-11073.shtml
UK attacked over savings scandal
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Princess-Diana-Was-Murdered-Because-She-Was-About-To-Give-Her-Support-To-Palestine-11073.shtml
BRITAIN ACCUSED OF WAR CRIMES
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Princess-Diana-Was-Murdered-Because-She-Was-About-To-Give-Her-Support-To-Palestine-11073.shtml
Knives most common weapon in youth murders
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Princess-Diana-Was-Murdered-Because-She-Was-About-To-Give-Her-Support-To-Palestine-11073.shtml
England attack wilts Pakistan
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Princess-Diana-Was-Murdered-Because-She-Was-About-To-Give-Her-Support-To-Palestine-11073.shtml
UK confirms using WEAPONS OF MASS DESTRUCTION in Iraq
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Princess-Diana-Was-Murdered-Because-She-Was-About-To-Give-Her-Support-To-Palestine-11073.shtml
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Another link for you mr.stick
Sep 21st, 2010 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dOmhkY9P1CM
@stick up your junta: your not good at maths... right?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 02010 - 153 = 1833 ???
Click on Start > Execute and type “Calc.exe”
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
@66 Good. You've proved you're a brainless Argentine turd. You'll learn.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(84) Alacrity174
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn’t as a question……….
You asked me to “expand about British Haughtiness”……..
As if you where a teacher and I a pupil…..
Typical British Haughtiness :-)
Your previous comments in this thread do indeed indicate a very shallow preconceptual knowledge of Latin American history.
I would be quite surprised if you were not BJ from Plymouth Devon UK
Ergo………… You, as an Englishman are more than adequately prepared to grasp the meaning of “British Haughtiness” without the help of a “pathetically biased South American ignorant……………..
Sincerely
El Think
@Typhoon: Thank you so much for your kind words, you need insults to make an offense, I don't need them... that shows you I know what the word “respect” means... he he
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0YES I am a latin american! .... and I will fight for the name of Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and any other country in latin america. I am very proud of being what I am.
LATINO!!!!!!!!!!! DID YOU HEAR THAT???
L-A-T-I-N-O
So don't mess with LA guys!!!, By the way, this is my new signature... isn't cute?
LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Anyone else who want to post another link to a war that happened 153 years
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 02010 - 153 = 1833 ???
In January 1833, the United Kingdom sent two naval vessels to re-assert British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands (Spanish: Islas Malvinas), after the United Provinces of South America (which later became Argentina) ignored British diplomatic protests over the appointment of Luis Vernet as Governor of the Falkland Islands and a dispute over fishing rights.
Falklands dispute? argies bringing up things that happened long time ago
Jefferson could do better if he concentrates
56 Alacrity174
Sep 21st, 2010 - 08:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“LATIN AMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
This is a work of pure fiction, how do you explain the relationship between Nicaragua & Honduras or Venezuela & Columbia or Paraguay and All of Latin America.”
Welcome. One question: And how do you explain the relationship between France and Romania (the problem of romanian gypsies), France and Bulgaria, Ireland and Uk, West Europe and East Europe (specially Balkans countries), the scottish problem in the same Uk?
Almost a big part of them, are members of the EU.
Theres nothing to explain. You are right DSE, but none of us claim to all live in peace and act like brothers in arms.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong, the only thing you want is to divide the latin american feeling with your poison comments. that's all. envy maybe?
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you think you are a better person because you are from Europe.
I have posted several links that were removed so you see, i am alone and I will fight for latinamerica, I am very proud of it,
So you want us divided? You won't see that happen!!!!
we are like brothers, eat that! whatever you like it or not!
So you want us divided? You won't see that happen!!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we are like brothers, eat that! whatever you like it or not!
Medication time Jefferson
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEmt1O5r0Os
This is the hardest THING for you people to understand:
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LEAVE US ALONE!!! KEEP THAT ISLAND but don't bother us anymore!!
AND IF WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LIKE BROTHERS,
it's NOT your business!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY...
Long life to Uruguay and to Pepe Mugica!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Long life to LATINOAMERICA !!!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ok.
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“LEAVE US ALONE!!! KEEP THAT ISLAND but don't bother us anymore!!”
We aren't bothering you, the only issue is that Argentina want's the island, other than that there is no issue with us and South America.
“AND IF WE BELIEVE THAT WE ARE LIKE BROTHERS,
it's NOT your business!!!”
No-one really cares either way.
“WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY”
There is no evidence that we are trying to do anything to change that.
Zethee: the articles talks about Uruguay denies the access to a royal navy, the MAIN DISCUSSION is that ARGENTINA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH URUGUAY'S DECISION AND IF THEY DECIDED TO DENY THE ACCESS, IT'S THEIR PROBLEM, not yours!!
Sep 21st, 2010 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So once again, LEAVE US ALONE, if you don't care then stop posting articles about wars happened centuries ago, we want to live peacefully here, if we believe we live in a paradise and we are happy with that idea, IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS
LONG LIFE TO LATINOAMERICA!!!
Has anyone seen my parrot??
Sep 21st, 2010 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ARGENTINA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH URUGUAY'S DECISION”
Bollocks!
“ ... ARGENTINA HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH URUGUAY'S DECISION ...”
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0How to be wrong on nearly every point in one thread .... well done to Dover Sole (by the way, there's more recent news on the pressure that Uruguay is feeling :-)
93 Zethee
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Theres nothing to explain. You are right DSE, but none of us claim to all live in peace and act like brothers in arms.”
Ok. So the european countries can continue developing weapons and increasing their stock, and if any problem happens between them, they are prepared to blow up the half of Europe.
Well, but if that happens, don't come to my country as refugees like you did after the two world wars.
The only thing you want is to start flamewars here and there ...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0But this time we are together and for god's sake, URUGUAY DOESN'T WANT TO TAKE
PART OF THIS DISPUTE, YOU SHOULD RESPECT THAT!!!!
A wise decision from Uruguay not to get involved in this situation that only concerns to Arg-Uk.
So Leave US alone, keep that island, get rich, be happy but stop bothering us!!! WE WANNA LIVE PEACEFULLY AND IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS !!!!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
UK CANNOT DIVIDE US! WE ARE TOGETHER THIS TIME!!!
Dover sole you appear to be some kind of idiot - Uruguay ARE getting involved by their compliance with their bullying neighbour's demands ... bullies can never be respected!
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You need to check out Mercopress' latest article.
I am very proud of being a parrot, a latino parrot and not a falker crow like you...At least, parrots don't cry all the time...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Uruguay doesnt want to take part of the dispute, RESPECT THAT!!
THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE ARG-UK DISPUTE!!! You come here to Montevideo and they don't want to get into troubles, so they sent you away, bye bye little ship, get oil somewhere else, we don't want to hear your crying about the falklands war and how bad argies are... bad bad boy, go and cry to someone else, not here!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY
so they would 'get into trouble' then ?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds like bullying to me ..... still, they have at least apologised to Britain.
And why would we cry about the Falklands war ... we won it :-)
So you think Uruguay is not free to decide what to do?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well I got news for you, Uruguay is a free NATION, they
don't depend on anybody and they're part of Latinoamerica, And if it sound bullying to you, i don't really care, believe whatever you want but leave US ALONE!!!
So if you're not welcome, it's not our fault. Perhaps you are not a good guest, especially if you come here and cry all the time “oh bad argies do this to us, bad argies do that”... well we don't really care what is your situation with Argentina, go and solve it with them, NOT WITH URUGUAY!!!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY
13.- Jefferson
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You'r totally wrong about Chile and Chileans.
Please, don´t take our words through your mouth....
First, we thank a lot the Argentines for their help when the earthquake but it doesn´t mean that we sold our soul to them.
Second, the Islanders send their help (a lot of money, bigger proportionally to the FI inhabitants). I can give faith of it:
“CHILE Earthquake Appeal funds totalling more than £26,600 are to be directed towards building 800 houses in the stricken town of Lolol in Colchagua Province. Fund organiser Celia Short thanked Islanders for their “fantastic” support and said she would report back on how the funds were being spent.” From Penguin News, 04-06-2010.
Third, we the Chilean never felt not proud of it as you say for our help to FI & UK. We were aware that an Argentine victory would mean that the conflict turn back to our borders again.
Fourth, any Chilean Gvt. would do the same and in this moment we are knowing how the Argentine Gvt. “help” us with the terrorist living there like little lamb.....
The most of us want that the conflict created about the FI be finished soon and we can our friendship with all countries without illegal pressures from one of them, denying our freedom to trade with any country that we want.
So, take your time before you write again .....
I don't know why you're crying all the time, but you do and we are certainly feed up of that. The only thing you want is to divide latin america, we are friendly and we have a good relationship wth our neighbours, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Chile and we want to keep that good relationship, it doesn't matter what you think or what you do, it's not your business if we want to live this way, but don't bring in troubles here...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0he he he he that's quite funny!!! but Apologize????... WTF?
URUGUAY DOESN'T NEED TO APOLOGIZE TO ANYONE! THEY DO WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH THEIR PORTS!! And if they came up with that decision, RESPECT IT!
And last, who do you think you are?????? Kylie Minogue? You come here and you expect a red carpet, champagne and strawberries?
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY
Jefferson, please write for your own country. We are Latainamericans, of course, but it doesn´t mind that we are mixed togerther....Don´t forget all the border´s issues that we have had during our 200 years as republican countries (Cuyo province and Patagonia, both robbed from Chile on precedents centuries, the Pacific war with Peru & Bolivia, The broken relatioships between Peru/Ecuador & Venezuela/Colombia & Bolivia/Chile & Uruguay/Argentina, etc. ). So, the fact we are latinamerican neighborns is not equivalent to friendship.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are NOT living peacefully and we DON'T want to stay in that way..
And all countries that want to be fiends with Chile are welcome axcept if they ask us to deny our help and frienship to any other.....
Falklands Island, be welcome to Chile any time...as well as the other world's countries...
And Jefferson, your rules are not Latinamerican rules, just Argentines rules pressing the neighbors.
109 Sergio Vega
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The most of us want that the conflict created about the FI be finished soon and we can our friendship with all countries without illegal pressures from one of them, denying our freedom to trade with any country that we want.”
I respect your opinion and i am partially agree, in particular, in deepen the international relationships between our countries. But a couple of months ago, your president dusted off the issue of continental ices (Hielos Continentales), an issue that had already been settled in 1998 between the parliaments of both countries.
Given this fact, let me ask you something: this does not affect the calm of the region?
http://edant.clarin.com/diario/2010/05/19/elpais/p-02197340.htm
Dover Sole - check out http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/21/mujica-sorry-hms-gloucester-but-our-priority-is-good-relations-with-argentina
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 03:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0He felt the need to explain himself according to the article - much appreciated !
And we have no need to divide LA, after all we have our own little place in the south Atlantic :-)
As for the border dispute between Argentina and Chile, I didn't think that matter had been finally settled and it was the publication of an Argentine map that caused the issue to resurface??
...“Fourth, any Chilean Gvt. would do the same and in this moment we are knowing how the Argentine Gvt. “help” us with the terrorist living there like little lamb.....”...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0- First of all, you cannot acuse anyone of terrorism without a single proof.
Second of all, if you are so worried about terrorism, you should've put Pinochet in jail, but you wouldn't do it, that's the fascist Piñera's double standart, isn't it? What about Prat assesination in Bs As? What about the rest of MILICOS ASESINOS still living as inocent lambs in Chile?
Time will teach Chile how disgusting is your rightest government, many chileans started to take in about the structural problems Chile is facing due to LACK OF SATATE and too much praising to private markets , and that things about being “los tigres de Sudamerica....¿Quién habrá sido el sinvergüenza que nos hizo creer eso?” say many chileans whose comments I read every week in chilean media.
...“The most of us want that the conflict created about the FI be finished soon and we can our friendship with all countries without illegal pressures from one of them, denying our freedom to trade with any country that we want.”...
- No one is denying you to trade with any country, but it happens to be true that Malvinas is not a country but part of my country ilegally occupied by pirates. What would you think if we started to trade with RapaNui people as if they were a separate country? Think about it!
I love chilean people, I love brazilians, peruvians, uruguayans, etc. There is no room for recalcitrant nationalistic in the new latinamerica we are building together. You are invited, it's up to you to come in!
Now that's a funny thing ... I thought Jorgy Boy was the RECALCITRANT ( obstinately uncooperative attitude) NATIONALIST ( a person with strong patriotic feelings, especially one who believes in the superiority of their country over others ).
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0But he's finally got one thing right - “ ... Malvinas is not a country ...” - no, it's a figment of Jorgy Boys imagination!
:-)
Jeff. I hope you manage to read this. Notice how Mujica admits he acted as he did under pressure from Argentina. Uruguay isn't free. It's an Argentine puppet. Probably soon to resume being a province of Argentina, as Argentina strangles its trade, its port, its economic development.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Notice the words of gorge the ranter, whose country never does anything wrong. Forget the 300,000 of its own people it killed. It wasn't them, it was “the dictatorship”. Wonder which one of the tens of thousands cheering in the streets was gorge?
Uruguay will probably be next. Free? Uruguay can probably afford to lose 300,000 people. Argentines will take over Uruguay's industries. Argentines will take over Uruguay's ports. Argentines will take over Uruguay. Hope you enjoy Argentina's concept of freedom.
Just to make it clear, I speak as a latinoamericano, thats WHAT I AM . In fact I have written so many times LA that they were complaints about that. I thought it was pretty clear.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0We all want this dispute to come to an end, but we certainly don't want to be part of it, UK has forced Uruguay to define a position and we are so feed up of this situation, UK and Argentina always wanted to involve other countries in their issues and they don't simply understand that the “we don't want to get into troubles” expression.
They just come here to provocate Argentina's reaction (I think they didn't say anything about it), so Mujica has been very “kind” this time, you are not welcome but you can come here and get what you need but please move on fast! We don't want troubles!!! You are using the press media and you expect to be treated as Kylie Minogue, with diamonds and flower... that won't happen
And Uruguay is not a puppet, it's a free nation that never cries. I don't care what you believe or not, it's up to you if you want to believe that we are aliens or cartoons or whatever you want, but DONT COME HERE CRYING FOR HELP and CRITISICING!
So now that Mujica has rejected....would you please stop crying now?
That would be very much appreciated!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
WE LIVE PEACEFULLY AND WE CERTAINLY WANT TO STAY IN THAT WAY
Dover sole - still getting it wrong I see! The other article on this subject within these pages certainly suggests that Argentina DID say something ... and it seems to be Uruguay that is damp eyed!
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Think 89
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a load of rubbish you spout.
Let’s start with the obvious, I asked a question, “would you expand about British haughtiness”, yes this is a question in the English language, if you took it as a teacher pupil scenario this is evidently a lack of confidence on your part and cannot be blamed on me.
If my knowledge of history from the South American continent is lacking than a debate is one of the best ways to broaden it, I could say the same about your elementary knowledge of pan European history and the part it has played in World development.
Prepare to be surprised for I am NOT BJ from Plymouth, Devon. UK and am not even in the UK so your “Ergo You as an Englishman” is wrong. So not only are your arguments incorrect your assumptions are way off the mark too.
It is people such as yourself who have a vast superiority complex that perpetuate wrongful thinking and hatred, your lack of thought before publishing comments on the web is amazing and your bigotry is nothing to be proud of.
Thankfully you do not speak for the majority of Latin Americans that I have met but to others who have not been fortunate enough to meet and speak with such people you are giving everyone else a very bad portrait of people from the region.
And if we talk about terrorism, would you someone can explain this theory?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Diana's best friend claimed that Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana were killed by the British and French security services, because Diana was about to give her support to Palestine, which could have outraged neighboring Israel and worsened the Middle East crisis.
I heard on the radio that the same ship has faced the same troubles in Brazil's ports. Looks it's not welcome anywhere.
@Alacrity174: I don't really care what you think or believe, we just want to leave us alone and send all your gossips to somewhere else, which is not an easy task for us to get rid of Colonialism.
So if you are not from UK, IT'S NOT YOUR BUSINESS!!!!! Don't mess with us!!!!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
IF YOU DON'T LIKE WHAT YOU SEE, DON'T COME HERE CRYING AND CRITICISING.
“ ... Fernández de Kirchner stated: ”This showed some sort of a joint defense that came from our region.“
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”I read somewhere that you had told United Kingdom Ambassador that you wished to preserve your relationship with Argentina, and that is why I believe this is some sort of joint defense from our region, because we know they are coming to exhaust our natural resources. They may come for the oil, then they may come for the fishery. They are after Argentina nowadays and they maybe after Uruguay tomorrow if they feel they are lacking something up there,“ the President said, talking directly to Mujica...”
So ... we are after Argentina now :-)
Sorry if you met other latin americans who treated you as “Kylie Minogue”, with strawberries, roses and an red carpet.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are friendly AS LONG AS you don't come here to provocate, insult and mess with us! And even worse, pretending to be BETTER than us!
And if we write in english, that shows you that we are able to speak in more than one language. YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
DON'T COME HERE CRYING AND CRITICISING.
Diana's best friend claimed that Dodi Fayed and Princess Diana were killed by the British and French security services, because Diana was about to give her support to Palestine, which could have outraged neighboring Israel and worsened the Middle East crisis
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing to do with the driver being pissed then?
well it's pretty obvious what happened... Diana was about to give her support to Palestine. We usually called that terrorism!
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
DON'T COME HERE CRYING AND CRITICISING.
@ Jefferson.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really are a piece of work, you use hearsay and rumour and claim this to be fact yet when confronted with real facts and events ignore them. For your information HMS Gloucester had NO trouble in any of her previous visits to countries within your precious Latin America.
Diana was not kiled by the French or English security services, this is pure conjecture and has no basis in fact.
It is pointelss trying to have an adult conversation about important issues with fools and bigots such as yourself, I will leave you to your delusional world.
@ Alacrity174
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think Diana's relatives think the same... what a coincidence!!!
She was about to give her support to Palestine and a few hours later she had an accident!!!!
Silly Diana, if she got into a car where the driver is absolutely drunk... Oh the autopsy reveled that he drank liters and liters and liters of whisky, he he that's sarcasm in case you didn't notice....
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
DON'T COME HERE CRYING AND CRITICISING.
“ ... And if we write in english, that shows you that we are able to speak in more than one language. YOU ARE NOT ABLE TO DO THAT! ...”
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dover sole you are missing the point .... we don't have to :-)
And what difference would Diana supporting Palestine have made? She was an irrelevance by then anyway!
Childish youth !
And why you don't want to have an adult conversation?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because I am telling something that you don't want to talk about?
Ma we skip subjects like “Tony Blair accused of putting war with Iran on the electoral agenda” just because you don't want to see it?
So you suggest that I am willing to see all the useless wiki links about wars happened centuries ago in LA that have nothing to do with the article just to prove that you are right?
So don't come here to talk about terrorism in LA where in Europe you have so much tasks to do!!!
btw, ” we don't have to :-)“ sounds to me like ”we are not able to”
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
DON'T COME HERE CRYING AND CRITICISING.
(119) Alacrity...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Scandinavians have a beautifull“ saying” to answer to answer that type of ignorant and insulting Haughtiness ......
“Du får ret, og jeg får fred!”
Meaning something like: You have it your way, and I will have my peace!
Have a nice live BJ from Devon :-)
“Du får ret, og jeg får fred!” Meaning: You have it your way, and I will get some peace!
And forgot to mention this article which I found very interesting...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It can be easily found googleing
“Tony Blair Ordered the London Bombings”
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=3329
Once again, don't come to talk about terrorism where you have plenty of examples of this subject. I can go on, there are thousand of articles, so who's bad after all?
Are we really bad people? The so-called indian puppets? Perhaps we learnt from the best.
And the only valid arguments you have are insults and insults.
Well the person who insults firstly is the person who's not right they say
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
STOP CRYING AND CRITICISING.
Think,
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have a good idea who Alacrity174, he isn't BJ and he isn't from Devon. I take it you're doing your usual trick of stalking everyone and trying to dig up dirt. Eh Alejandro?
The London bombings was a terrible terrorism attack, If I were You I would care about this firstly and make sure that won't happen again.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And if the ship came before, who really cares? That was anoher story!
And it's not your business who we want to host and who we don't!!!!!
well said Think!, they should learn from the Swedish, but unfortunately they can't learn they are not welcome if the come with that Kylie Minogue attitude !!!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
STOP CRYING AND CRITICISING.
Tony Blair Ordered the London Bombings”
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Princess Diana were killed by the British and French security services
And the Falklands are Argentine
Medication time Jefferson
www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEmt1O5r0Os
mmm stick, looks that you don't want to talk about... and these theories come from UK, not from us... he he scary, isn't?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Swedish is a serious and admirable nation, you should learn from them.
They always stayed neutral in conflicts. well, at least they don't have prime ministers who order bombing attacks to the city.
Shall we go on with more examples about terrorism in Europe?
Or perhaps it's time to switch to History and talk about how the second world war begun? Because if we talk about Hitler, we will be filling thousands of pages with comments, so much to write!!
Despite that, how you dare to speak about “terrorism” in latin america
So now, who's bad after all? The poor latin indian puppets who are not willing to welcome the kings and queens from the ancient kingdom with flowers, gifts and champagne? Too many musicals shows Kylie!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
STOP CRYING AND CRITICISING.
As it rather obviously Margo spamming again, you're better of not bothering.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry, I don't need medication, save those pills for the next driver who you're blaming to.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are not used to take medication to make us believe fairy tales. Instead of medication, I suggest you
to take a ride to Latinoamerica, we have plenty of beautiful landscapes you shouldn't miss.
And regarding those sources, it¡s your own media, its up to you if you want to believe or not,
it's not our business. You see, I don't take part of your issues, so leave us alone PLEASE
Spam = truth??? Oh no, we cannot believe the truth, it is forbidden for us!
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
STOP CRYING AND CRITICISING.
Justin. I tend to agree. Margo or one of his ilk. Back to complaining about spamming again then.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So now you tell me that I am making up this story about a man (?) called Hitler and his plan to destroy the European Jews?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How was it at all possible that Hitler found such an immense number of followers over europe? Probably every thinking person in the post-war period has wondered at some time or other how it could have happened that a human being devised a gigantic machinery of death and found millions of helpers to set it in motion.
6 million of jews died in the Holocaust. And now you're trying to teach me lessons about Terrorism in latinoamerica?
France now is on red alert for a possible Al Qaeda terror attack.
Or are you going to tell me that Osama Bin Laden is latino now?
LATINOAMERICA RULES!!!
Now you don't have words to reply? Suddenly all your arguments are gone and summed up in a single word “spam”. Sad
@Jefferson's Soul
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In your post #76 you accuse me of googling up brazil argentine war, and posting wiki links (that actually backed up my argument), in an attempt to make my argument look weak and myself lacking in historical knowledge. Yet in your post #86 you, yourself, do exactly the same thing, googling popular british news reports, conspiracies and reports on WMD. TO me and no doubt to many here that, makes you a hypocrite.
Perhaps next time i should send you my entire libary of books covering world history, dating back to roman time, by post instead of taking the easy and cheapest option of locating the same information on the information highway! Oh but then since your a hypocrite, i suppose all i would get back in return is just links that you found on google!!!
I must be brave. Me against 50 users or more.
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When it comes to your history, nobody wants to discuss, probably they know I'm right.
And I feel very proud of Uruguay, which is a small country compared to UK but stronger enough to say “Rights of admission reserved”
Now I guess they clearly know that they are not welcome here with that attitude of kings and queens.
I finally shut their mouths. And I hope they can leave us alone.
Peace
I must be brave. Me against 50 users or more
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0VC stuff,Mutt and Jeff
And you know something, I don't need any insults to reply... which makes you even more angry! I just post what everybody knows and nobody wants to know. Silly really?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And if I'm not telling the truth... why so many angry users are still posting comments to me? (I see the words “To Jefferson” through the whole page) Perhaps I've been writing history events you are not allowed to remember. For example the Second World War, which no one of you have replied me back. 6 million is a number that exceeded all expectations.
Peace People
The more insults you reply, the more active I become
LATINOAMERICA RULES
“RIGHTS OF ADMISSION RESERVED”
You know jefferson, when it comes to preventing yourself from looking stupid on a forum or when posting comments on a news report. It generally helps if you read the last comment posted. In this case is was one of mine in response to one of your earlier post, which contradicts your claim to be right. Which is a some what unfounded and 100% disputable claim to victory on your part
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In response to your statements in your last post #140.
1 - we dont need to dicuss our history, as we all know about it, and the second world war has no relevance to the situation between argentina and the falklands islands. Where as argentina's approach towards claiming the islands is similar to previous historical attempts of territorial disputes with its nieghbours and very much relevant to the falklands war that it started.
2. Uraguary where acting after pressure from argentina after already previously agreed to allow entry
“HMS Gloucester was due to visit Montevideo 15th-17th this month, and on the 14th she was cruising slowly towards the River Plate ready to arrive early am 15th when they received the word that due to ‘expected’ pressure from Argentina the call had been cancelled by Uruguay.” Found here - http://en.mercopress.com/2010/09/21/mujica-sorry-hms-gloucester-but-our-priority-is-good-relations-with-argentina
3- You say we clearly know we are not welcome there. Assuming you mean argentina... Well why would we want to go there, when we would get the warmest of welcomes in the falkland islands, knowing at the same time that you would not be welcome there.
There will only be peace once argentina learns to be realistic and grows up!
...“Wonder which one of the tens of thousands cheering in the streets was gorge?”...
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- I awas being born in the South of Argentina back then! BTW my name is Jorge, not gorge. Retard!
I awas being born in the South of Argentina back then
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.consortiumnews.com/archive/story44.html
Well, Jeff. This is the sort of thanks we Brits get for helping create your country. Never mind. Argentina is getting ready to take over. It interferes in your economy (paper mill), it interferes in your port operations (Montevideo), it interferes in your trade (fishing vessels), it even interferes in your international relations. And all Mujica can manage is, “Yes, Madam President. Whatever you say”. I thought he was supposed to be a man. Or has she already crushed his balls?
Sep 22nd, 2010 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hi, gorge. I call you by a name that represents your intelligence and attitude. You don't like it? Tough!
Muchas Gracias Pepe.............
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cristina
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxivHUJv2vs
I agree, Thank you Mr Pepe Mujica.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks from Argentines to lap dog Mujica. Soon to be “president” of an Argentine province.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 10:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0How you dare to talk about poverty or civil wars in LA when you killed “six million” of jews during the Second world war.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 01:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIX MILLION!!!!!
So don't come here to teach us lessons of how to do “the right thing”.
Why don't you send your ship to make sure the Gulf oil spill is over now, that was just a terrible ecological disaster!!!
Do you know what “environment” means?
And why don't you reply what I asked before? Lack of arguments? Maybe
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
The refusal of Latin American nations to offer admittance to more Jewish refugees stemmed from many causes. Growing antisemitism was undoubtedly one reason, as was fear of economic competition. In certain cases, there was resentment of the fact that some Jewish refugees who were admitted on the condition that they work in agricultural regions later drifted to the cities. In addition, the sympathy of some Latin Americans of German descent for Nazi ideology and racial theories also contributed to increasing antisemitism.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And why don't you reply what I asked before? Lack of arguments? Maybe
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!
SIX MILLION!!”
Yes, you're right. SIX MILLION JEWS murdered by Nazis who later sought, and obtained, refuge in South America, notably Argentina.
What do I mean with the phrase “not welcome here”?
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I thought that was PRETTY CLEAR!!!
Why don't you read the title above:
“Uruguay bans docking permit to Royal Navy vessel heading for the Falklands”
So, think twice... I know it is hard for you to think, but try, try just a little bit harder...
No, don't google it, just use your brain, this is the way your mind should work:
”Jeff is talking about Japan? No, Japan is not in America I think (not sure, check out that later).
mmm perhaps Argentna? Yes, it could be, or Uruguay? Not sure where he's from since he never replies on other articles
except this one. But Jefferson is talking about Latinoamerica. What is Latinoamerica?
I should google, I don't know what it is... is Latinoamerica a new country? The new SHAKIRA album's title?
Oh wiki says it is a bunch of american countries in which their spoken language is spanish or portuguese,
oooooooh more than one.. so he must be suggesting a whole region, ohhhhhhh I see, I don't know what to write
all I have been doing until now is clicking on my browser the google search “Argentina + Bad” that is bookmarked as Favorite.
Shall I create a new alert for this new country? Opps, sorry, this region?”
So accuse me of being whatever you want, a puppet, a japanese, a swedish, an indian, I DON'T REALLY CARE, as long as you don't come here and spill oil over the sea and destroy our natural sources, just the way you did on the mexican Gulf!
President Obama has called the spill “a potentially unprecedented environmental disaster”, not a minor detail if you ask me.
And what are your forthcoming comments? More youtube links? Is that the best you can do?
“RIGHTS OF ADMISSION RESERVED”
152 Typhoon
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 05:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Yes, you're right. SIX MILLION JEWS murdered by Nazis who later sought, and obtained, refuge in South America, notably Argentina.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
Typhoon, you are right, we HAD to deal with those nazis, the “gargabe” you throw away from the war, you sent them here!!!
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“RIGHTS OF ADMISSION RESERVED”
GO AND CRY SOMEWHERE ELSE!
@ DSE
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 05:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We get the engineers,you get the mass murders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Eichmann
he he he he, So engineers were not murders too?
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What other garbage are you sending us?
Are you planning another oil spill over here?
“RIGHTS OF ADMISSION RESERVED”
GO AND CRY SOMEWHERE ELSE!
stick up your junta
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First you say that all the nazis (that european crap) came to South America, specially Argentina.
Then you say that you got the engineers, and we got the european crap.
Read this my pirate:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tank
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Tank
Jeje is really fun to talk with these pirates.
Ps: Take your time to read next time: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip
I consider that both (engineer and soldiers) were murders and they went to everywhere, some to South America, some were recruited for employment by the United States, UK, etc ... and they got false passports easily by the Red Cross. Too much corruption in the ancient world..
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGuLzH_9Jc
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you learnt well from them
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=taGuLzH_9Jc
stick up your junta
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And you learnt well from them
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ESMA”
But nobody exceeds your works:
1)http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
2) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
3) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
4) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
5) http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
6) And for me the worst genocide: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/jul/23/congo.comment
DSE, I have learnt that you have to supply this huge evidence of british cruelty one by one, somehow they seem deaf and blind to what they dislike.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 06:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In order to see only the mistakes of Argentina/Latam countries, that obviously we have...as they have too.
This national biased point of view is a nasty discovery of my short participation here.
Faced personally they use to be more objective.
@Pheel and DSE
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That isn't the way it works from my observation. Usually someone from Argentina will post an ad hominem attack of various supposed brutalities perpetuated by the British. In response, you will usually see references to exactly the same perpetuated by Argentina. You claim the moral high ground but in fact you did exactly the same.
A national biased point of view, well I nearly spilled my coffee and you came close to owing me a keyboard for that remark. All I ever hear from Argentines is a biased nationalistic version of history and an inability to consider what others think. What you see here is people responding to crap from the likes of Jorge, Marco and his compatriots like Think.
It is pointless to refer to the past, you cannot condemn a whole people because of what happened in the past. What this has to do with the Falkland Islanders, who quite peacefully took an unhabited and barren set of islands and through sheer force of will have hewn a living I will never know.
Perhaps you might care to reflect on what this has to do with a peaceful people who simply wish to be left in peace.
And I still haven't seen any references to how Utrecht stopped Britain from settling in the Falklands.
Nasty
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_flights
The atrocities commited during the self elected criminal government of Argentina were terrible and a dark part of our history, some of those criminals are in jail or in the way there. But the atrocities commited by the british empire compares only to nazi Germany. Did anyone saw that picture of the concentration camp in South Africa, posted by DSE?
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The atrocities commited during the self elected criminal government of Argentina were terrible and a dark part of our history
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Including the invasion of the Falklands?
I see the point passed you by didn't it Ale?
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was some bad things that happened in the British Empire, the concentration camps in the Boer War being one of them. Have you actually read the article and found out what happened to stop them? It was stopped by British politicians campaigning against the inhumanity of them.
There is a fundamental difference between the Briitsh Empire and Nazi Germany. The Nazis systematically set out to murder an entire race of people, the British never did.
In addition, the British Empire was dissolved peacefully by the British themselves granting independence not through costly wars of independence.
Now if you can only view the British through a prism of hatred and use history to justify that to yourself, well that merely illustrates your own mentality. Your own history includes many such examples and in that respect you clearly do not own any moral high ground.
I note yet again its used as an excuse to avoid awkward questions.
The Malvinas war started by self elected Galtieri was wrong yes, however no atrocities were commited, some regretable actions against some civilians , maybe. But not a single civilian was raped, hurt or killed by argentines forces. Three ladies died due to indiscriminate bombardment of british war ship over their own civilians(remenber their names?) . The war was used by Galtieri and Thatcher to survive in their governments, remenber Galtieri started and Thatcher make sure to undermined any peace proposal in order to go to war. However make no mistake Malvinas was is and always be part of Argentina. Have a good day.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Model guests the Argies
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After air raids on Goose Green and Stanley, the Argentines forcibly imprisoned all Goose Green residents in the community hall - 115 people including 43 children and two people over eighty, at first with no food or bedding, and only two toilets. In breach of the Geneva Convention, they were kept in a building not marked as for civilian detainees and not provided with shelters against air and artillery bombardment. The prisoners lifted the floorboards to dig dank uncomfortable bunkers for safety as bombs and shells exploded
Ale,
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Geneva Convention requires the occupying power to make provision for civil defence. Argentina made no such provision, leaving the islanders to fend for themselves.
The incident that lead to the deaths of three Falklands Islanders was not indiscriminate shelling, it was very carefully targeted at senior Argentine officers and under the control of a Forward Observation Officer. The problem was a failure on the warship HMS Avenger meant that two shells went rogue and unfortunately the three were killed.
Their names were:
Susan Whitley
Doreen Bonner
Mary Godwin
Susan Whitley was a Home Economics teacher at the school in Stanley, her husband Steve the vet. There is now an art prize in her memory awarded annually.
Doreen Bonner had a handicapped daughter, her husband was distraught at the death of his wife and died himself shortly after. He never got over it. That left their daughter Cheryl an orphan.
Mary Goodwin was 84 yr old, she died in agony hours later of shrapnel wounds. Her son was also wounded in the incident.
Perhaps you might like to think of them as human beings, some of whom would be alive today, with grandchildren had Galtieri and that bunch of thugs not invaded. You might also like to think what state Argentina would be in now had they succeeded. And in thinking of them as human beings you might stop thinking of them as just another insult to fling at the British.
The same thugs who murdered 30,000 Argentines did not morph into noble heroes the moment they stepped on the Falklands. The occuption was not benign or benevolent and yes there were some very serious incidents of unaceptable behaviour by your forces.
Those are some of the regretable actions, during a war, that I mentioned before. Did any civilian was hurt, raped or killed by argentine forces?
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I remenber the burial of Sea harrier pilot Lt Taylor with full military honors by the argentinians, if using negatives actions make you feel better go right ahead.
if using negatives actions make you feel better go right ahead.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Behaviour breeds behaviour
169 stick up your junta
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TODOS LOS COMPATRIOTAS Y LATINOS LEAN ESTO!!! (Pirates translate it)
http://www.taringa.net/posts/info/1355957/Relatos-de-crimenes-britanicos-en-la-Guerra-de-Malvinas.html
The same British's crap, like always.
Ale
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was any civilian hurt?
Well yes actually, your Major Dowling was rather fond of clubbing people to the ground for having the temerity to try and explain to the prick he was on the wrong island. You might like to drop a line to Lisa Watson who occasionally writes on Mercopress about the time he put a loaded gun to her head. She was 11 at the time.
And no I don't need to use “negatives” as you put it to feel good about myself. In case you hadn't noticed that is clearly not the message I'm trying to convey.
I was trying to get you to think of the Falkland Islanders as people rather than an obstale to Argentine national pride and to perhaps rethink the Argentine propaganda that portrays them in such a negative light. Like the fact they don't get a say in their own future as they are squatters in they own homes.
@ DSE
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not nice if true,but war is hell
What excuse doing this to your own civillians
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parrilla_(torture)
@ Jeff, DSE & Ale
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0While we're digging things up, try this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ratlines_(World_War_II)
Please notice in particular “In his 2002 book The Real Odessa Argentine researcher Uki Goñi used new access to the country's archives to show that Argentine diplomats and intelligence officers had, on Perón's instructions, vigorously encouraged Nazi and Fascist war criminals to make their home in Argentina. According to Goñi, the Argentines not only collaborated with Draganović's ratline, they set up further ratlines of their own running through Scandinavia, Switzerland and Belgium.”
So, we didn't send them, as Jeff suggests, you were out there encouraging them. In my view, Argentina bears as much responsibility for the Holocaust as Nazi Germany.
As far as the Falkland Islands is concerned, it is convenient now to call that “a dark part of our history”. But it was only 28 years ago. So every Argentine shares responsibility for that. As far as we are concerned the age of criminal responsibility is 10. The age at which we think a person should be able to tell the difference between right and wrong. So every person in Argentina over the age of 9 in 1982 is responsible and will be until they die. People in Argentina who weren't 10, or weren't even born, are equally responsible if they hold the same views. The pictures that are a matter of public record, whether you like to admit it or not, show tens of thousands of Argentines in the streets celebrating the invasion of a peaceful country that had never done anything to you. And you continue to this day.
So there you have it. Argentina, a country full of criminals. In case you wonder, I can speak courteously to a German. But I have never forgiven Germany. Even 70 years on, it is still a country of criminals.
Still at it in 2006
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article652322.ece
DSE, using El Malvinense as evidence?
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BTW I have read Bramley's book and most of the incidents he describes there are not in it. What is, is quoted out of context. Allegations of War Crimes have been extensively investigated by Scotland Yard and been found wanting.
For example the incident at Goose Green, there were a lot of prisoners and the priority was to get them under shelter. Your forces had stacked munitions next to the settlement in the belief it would deter the British from attacking. That needed to be moved, unfortunately someone had booby trapped it - not revealing booby traps by the way is contrary to the Geneva Convention. The incident they characterise as an execution, was when a medic shot a man beyond help burning to death. Now that was an act of mercy, not a war crime.
If you wish to characterise it is as a war crime to justify your hatred of the British, then frankly I pity you. All the allegations of war crimes have been found wanting, the truth is that the British treated casualties according to need not nationality.
I suggest you read:
http://www.redandgreen.co.uk/
http://www.redandgreen.co.uk/
Rick Jolly has both an OBE and is an Officer of the Order of May, he was decorated by both sides for treating battle casualties. I can recommend reading the book, including the accounts where following the Battle of Mount Longdon, British medics covered the wounded to protect them with their own bodies from the effects of Argentine shelling. The wounded were both British and Argentine.
As a final parting shot, may I also suggest you read the accounts of those conscripts who testified that they were treated better by the British than by their own officers. For that I suggest Two Sides of Hell by Vincent Bramley.
About using “negatives” was intended to Mr Stick. I will like one day to drop a line to Lisa about her bad experience, I will tell her that during the early days of my military dictatorship , one member of this large group did the same to me for not a good reason, I was young too. Do I say that every member of the military was a criminal? no, many of them were serving their year of service and many others did not have a clue about their commanders secret detention centers. About the islanders I do not have anything against them, do I disagree about their selfdetermination or the ownership of the islands? sure, is well known about our territorial dispute. My point of view is that our governments or a mediator need to talk with both sides and see if an agreement can be reached.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still at it
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julio_Jorge_L%C3%B3pez
You have a long tradition as an Empire of behaving cruel and greedy. At the same time had a lot of good iniciatives and positive leaders. Do you know that most of the killers of the indians in Tierra del Fuego were british? For those who talk about indigenous massacres. La Forestal of brit capital and managers was another mythical example of exploitation and repression.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Said that, I don´t hate nor GB or Englishmen, but you are biased against everybody. Just take a look around what is writen in Mercopress! Can´t you realize that you are invaders worldwide!
The islanders deserve to be taken in account, as you live there from a long time.
But you are part of the Brit strategy to hold an area that was confiscated violating treaties and kept for strategic and economic reasons. And long time ago you choosed to be pawns of that strategy. When GB discussed alternatives before 1982.
Surely that we can empathize about abuses then. Not so sure the same from you.
On the treaties that gave you Gibraltar and at the same time neglected rigths to GB in the Indias Occidentales Meridionales, unless were listed in the 1670 pact, you can do you own homework.
For example, in 1749 GB accepted that the islands were inside the first annexed article of Utrecht (1713) and canceled the plan of ocupation. Later, they came without right, competing with the French.
For further details on Utrecht, look yourself, my copy is in Spanish and you don´t understand our language, don´t you?
The thing is Ale, the islands are their home, many have lived there 9 and more generations. It is a land they care about and a land they have worked very hard to develop. What do events of 200 yrs ago matter compared to that.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And by the way, your Government refuses to talk with the islanders, the offer has already been made. If you were interested I would be happy to talk about the historical claims but sadly experience teaches me that you wouldn't be keen on listening to what I have to say.
Pity really, its Argentina that has created and sustains this dispute and sadly its Argentina that precludes any solution that takes the islanders into account.
Justin, I agree with you about the islanders, but also I know that some of them “parachuted” there not too long ago to make money and like Pheel said “The islanders deserve to be taken in account, as you live there from a long time”. About historical o geographical facts I think both sides will disagree not matter what with say anymore that is why a mediator is needed to solve this old dispute once and for all.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah yes, so now we divide according to how long you think is significant. What is it, 1 generation, 2 generation, 3? They freely chose to live there, they were not implanted to frustrate Argentina's claims. Again you find excuses to dismiss their views.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Deserve to be taken into account? No, their views are paramount, this is what self-determination is all about.
I wonder if any of you have ever read 1984 because you exhibit perfectly the ability to Double Think.
On the one hand you ever so solemnly condemn the British for once having an Empire, talking about rights you allegedly inherited from the Spanish Empire. Mmm.
Pheel, I can read Spanish, though I'm the first to admit that my Spanish is crap. And as I previously pointed out there is more than one Treaty involved with Utrecht, so which are you concerned with.
You assert that under Utrecht Britain had no right to settle in the Falklands? Under which article is that please.
You also assert that the proposed expedition of 1749 was abandoned because Britain recognised Spanish rights under Utrecht. No that isn't the case, Britain chose to abandon the expedition under Spanish threats. It did not in any way acknowledge anything, please name an original source that makes that claim, as opposed to an historical revisionism that creatively re-interprets the past to support a modern agenda.
If you're claiming Article VIII under the Peace and Friendship Treaty of Utrecht between Spain and Great Britain? There is nothing there that would preclude Britain settling in the Falklands, nothing whatsoever. Spain may have asserted that it was Spanish territory under the Treaty of Tordessilla, that was never accepted by the UK and before the French and British settled there, Spain had no interest at all.
That one Bourbon king bullied another into giving up the French settlement is also not recognition under Utrecht.
I did not divide anything I just said that some just arrived there to make money, you brought the time issue saying that many have lived there 9 and more generations.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0About Self determination is a right used by some governments when they needed, and is a right that argentinians in 1833 were not provided by the british. My opinion.
JK, 184
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not the VIII article, and wrong on the Bourbon issue: for that relationship Utrecht was signed between GB and Spain, as GB claimed for garantees against unification between both Bourbons. (just historical precision)
Malvinas was Spanish as the GB-Spain Utrecht Treaty neglected GB to establish new colonies in Indias Meridionales Occidentales (América del Sur) with explicit mention of the sorrounding islands.
And for double thinking:
There are rights for most of british colonies in America that come from the article that you haven´t found yet.
As most of independent countries received and recognize the territory rights inherited from the former empire to which they have been part.
English, Portuguese or Spanish, it is accepted worldwide.
I can critisize the British Empire and its cruelty as I could do about Spanish Empire. No impact on territories rights.
Spanish Empire has disappeared long time ago.
And the British Empire is alive in Malvinas and Gibraltar.
Just take a look on how “your potential oil” is commented in british forums as “our potential oil”
Hope that not oil will be found and a peaceful solution could be found.
Well they can comment all they like about “our potential oil” because it belongs to the Falkland Islanders, who have issued the licenses and will reap any rewards.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British Empire doesn't exist, neither Gibraltar or the Falkalnds are colonies. They are self-governing, have been for some time, the British policy has always been to increasingly devolve Government on to the people who live there.
It may suit you to think differently as it merely re-inforces your pre-conceived notions, that doesn't make it so.
As regards colonial intent, like impolitely not using the English name for the islands in a discussion in English. A name re-invented as part of Argentina's desire to impose a colonial regime on the islands.
So we're still not naming the article then, you make a claim but can't back it up. Mmm. Again I've looked at the Treaty and can't find any article that is related to what you're claiming. Notice I simply ask you to back up a claim ... and you don't.
How many times have I asked now?
You keep talking about what you “inherited”, you inherited nothing, you took what you could grab. As for Double Think, clearly the point passes you by.
Good evening…..(185)Ale, It’s true that there has been recent economic migration to the islands, or people arriving to make money as you put it, but isn’t that true with most migration? That people go to another country in search of making more money with better living standards? If there is work for them, and they will contribute to society, then I can’t see why the local authorities would allow it.
Sep 23rd, 2010 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Regarding your other point, without wanting to repeat all the points that have been made several times, Vernet’s colony was operating under British permission, and most stayed on under British rule. The problem is, there was no international standard at the time regarding self determination, and trying to apply current international law retroactively would result in a lot more disputes than it would settle. The case of Diego García gets raised a lot in this topic, but I don't really buy the argument that the British government fucked over the Chagossians, so they should therefore do the same to islanders. I’m sure that we can agree that both of our countries (like most countries) have done good and bad things in the past, and its futile to drag up as many bad things as possible about the other country’s past, and ultimately takes us nowhere. Just out of interest, do you believe that blame should be passed down through multiple generations?
Saludos
Justin,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can´t save you for doing homework.
I ve gave you a lot of tips but I don´t like “masters” who orders me “name the article”.
It´s there, not in the main treaty but with the explicit mention that must be considered part of it, enough for stopping GB for invading the islands until Napoleon wars during the risk of reunification that motivated Utrecht.
“I´m just a farmer with an internet connection and the lonely Pampas r my home” so, please find the article yourself...let´s put it as my spanish copy of the Treaty of Utrecht it´s very old and I can´t send it to you because the Mail here works very slow.
You criticize these actions, first, they are not an act of war, second: are measures appropriate to our claim of sovereignty, and third, should be aware of where you are standing in the world, look at this:
Sep 24th, 2010 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0INTERNATIONAL COALITION FOR BRITISH REPARATIONS
Welcome to BritishReparations.org, the official site of the International Coalition for British Reparations. We are a global network of citizens who have suffered injuries at the hands of the British Empire over the last five hundred years. We've banded together to ask the United Kingdom to compensate the world for all the damage they've done.
http://www.britishreparations.org/
Mr Frase, “people arriving to make money as you put it, but isn’t that true with most migration?” I do not have an issue with migration for the cause that you just mentioned, one of my issues is about oil drilling in a clearly disputed area beteween two nations and well known in UN that clearly stated not to take that kind of actions. Also I tried to explain, in my poor english, that not all the islanders are there for many generations, including your own Governor Huckle and some Legislative members. And about your question I do not blame the islanders, they are also the victims of failed imperial policies of the UK.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Saludos
oil drilling in a clearly disputed area beteween two nations and well known in UN that clearly stated not to take
Sep 24th, 2010 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Say for argument sake you won the Falklands war,you would do what you bloody well like dispute or no dispute
I know that some of them “parachuted” there not too long ago to make money
Welcome to planet earth,also as the Argies like to point out there are only 3,000 islanders so whats wrong in making the numbers up
” ... Malvinas was Spanish as the GB-Spain Utrecht Treaty neglected GB to establish new colonies in Indias Meridionales Occidentales (América del Sur) with explicit mention of the sorrounding islands....”
Sep 24th, 2010 - 06:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think you'll find that the Falkland Islands had been British since 1690. Having said that, even if they were Spanish, what's that got to do with Argentina? A rebellious child attempting to claim an inheritance that Spain had long lost when Spain finally recognised the independence of her offspring.
Old myths, old rubbish .... no legal basis !
Lisa Watson is a resentful person. She hates Argentina! Everyone can note it by reading her articles. Mercopress helps her since it's part of the “Falklands propaganda” in South America.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 07:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regretably, islanders are puppets of UK. They think UK respects their “rights”, but that's bullshit! It happens to be that UK interests in this region agree with islanders' wishes and UK needed the conflict, whether you admit it or not, to “legitimate” the occupation.
We'll have several more decades with a lot more of these issues.
“ ... We'll have several more decades with a lot more of these issues....”
Sep 24th, 2010 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe even centuries :-)
Lisa Watson is a resentful person
Sep 24th, 2010 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Must have Argentine blood,or might have something to do with having Her country invaded
We'll have several more decades with a lot more of these issues.
Not good for the mental health of the Argies LOL
gorge. I don't think you understand. Everyone hates Argentina. There are some countries that see Argentina as temporarily useful for their own purposes. Some who give lip service to your aspirations. But no-one actually likes you. I see you haven't reached the status of a courteous, intelligent, reasonable human being yet.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now let us deal with the origins of the Islanders: -
61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other
That seems quite clear.
We can go further. If you'd like to continue to claim what you “inherited” from the Spanish Empire, we could simply point out that there is not, and never has been, any principle of territorial inheritance in international law. But if you choose to persist, you should remember that “the sins of the fathers shall be visited on their children, yea, unto the last generation”. So we can blame you for the burning of heretics, the Inquisition, the genocide of the Aztec and the Inca, the Spanish concentration camps in Cuba (predating any British camps), slavery (a well-known Spanish institution), the slave trade (instituted by Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands and stamped out by Britain). Shall I go on? Very inhuman, your ancestors. Is Argentina different? Not really. Your “Dirty War” was only forty years ago. That may seem a long time to a country with a history of only 157 years, but it is nothing to a nation with a history of 2,000 years.
Hoytread, 193
Sep 24th, 2010 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was answering a direct question from Justin Kuntz about the Treaty of Utrecht, seems that you were surfing the thread so the issue shocked you. But don´t dismiss so lightly.
If you have Utrecht against your rights for Pt.Egmont, you are relying just in colonialism brute force.
GB never bothered of rights if they had a frigate in the area.
BTW, Utrecht stated clearly that british posessions in South America had to be only the 1670s ones. GB agreed, signed on it, received Gibraltar and later retreated of the 1749 attempts to colonize Malvinas.
Pheel, you're missing the point. The Treaty of Utrecht is irrelevant. It was a Treaty between Britain and Spain (amongst others).
Sep 24th, 2010 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0It was not a Treaty between Britain and Argentina.
Argentina inherited NOTHING from Spain.
The relevance of 1749 escapes me. In 1769 we told the Spanish to 'go away', in 1770 the Spanish arrived with a large enough force to make us 'go away, then in the face of war, Spain 'retreated' and the British took back the islands. Every attempt since then to make us 'go away' have failed. Which is why we're still there.
Utrecht is irrelevant! The islands have NEVER belonged to Argentina and I seriously doubt they EVER will :-)
In 1749, Lord Anson had proposed an expedition that amongst the places intended to surveyed was the Falkland Islands. Lord Anson himself had visited the islands earlier and suggested their use as a base to explore the Pacific. The expedition was called off after Spain learnt of the plan and put pressure on the Government. It actually has nothing to do with Utrecht.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 11:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now returning to the question posed. Being familiar with the Treaty of Utrecht I know of no provision that would stop the British setting up on the Falkland Islands. Always willing to learn I have asked Pheel to identify which article contains this provision.
His response indicates that it isn't actually in the treaty but in “another document”. I didn't demand anything, you'll note I was prepared to consider evidence objectively in support of his assertion. Unsurprisingly it turns out there is nothing to support that.
His claim that Utrecht states this is clearly unsupported by the historical record.
Jorge,
Usually I don't feel the need to comment on anything you write, as usually your incoherent ramblings condemn themselves. However, even you must feel a bit of a dick ranting about Lisa Watson given the previously supplied information. And you wonder why the islanders want nothing to do with Argentina. You're a great ambassador for Great Britain in the Falklands.
Thank you Justin ... I'd quite forgotten about Anson's proposed expedition.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203
Treaty of Utrecht pages 40-107. The article Pheel refers to is on page 93, the first separate article.
Pheel,
That article is irrelevant as the Falklands were not Spanish territory when it was signed nor were they when Britain first settled in 1765, and if they were Spanish in 1833, it would have been Spain's prerogative to complain, not Argentina's. And Spain never did.
The British king made quite clear to the Spanish King why he had called off the 1749 expedition; it had nothing to do with any recognition of Spanish sovereignty:
“His Majesty could in no respect agree to the reasoning of the Spanish ministry as to his right to send out ships for the discovery of the unknown an settled parts of the world, as this was a right indubitably open to all; yet, as his Britannic Majesty was desirous of showing his Catholic Majesty his great complacency in matters where the rights and advantages of his own subjects were not immediately and intimately concerned, he had consented to lay aside for the present every scheme that might possibly give umbrage to the court of Madrid”
The treaties signed with Spain did place restrictions on sailing to parts occupied by Spain at the time, but they did not place restrictions on sailing to parts that were not occupied by Spain and they certainly did not place any blanket restriction on Britain navigating in the South Atlantic.
The Nootka sound treaty did place mutual restrictions on settling further south than Spain already had, but it specifically says South of territories held by Spain and Spain did not hold any territories in South America in 1833.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ENUGAAAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=A+collection+of+treaties+between+Great+Britain+and+other+powers.&hl=en&ei=_6mcTOTLGIPb4gaNnsDQDQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false
Sep 24th, 2010 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I had a copy already but thanks for pointing it out, I presume this is what he is referring to. I was interested to see if he could actually name it, as I suspected he was simply repeating what he'd heard elsewhere not his own research.
I would appreciate a pointer to where the quote above comes from, I've seen it before but its not in my collection. Thanks
The quote is in Lowell Gustafson's book. It seems the quote is no longer available to view online.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK I think I have a copy up in the attic somewhere. That'll be fun finding it.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In four articles that were presented by Lexington and posivitely answered by the King of Spain (and had to be included in the 1713 Treaty), they signed that:
Sep 24th, 2010 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“La reina de GB y sus sucesores gozarán de todas las islas, provincias, colonias, etc situados en las Indias Occidentales y en otras partes que han sido cedidas al rey de GB por el artículo VIII del Tratado de 1670.”
(in Spanish in the original)
It´s a restrictive right, restricted to the present properties at 1670. Doesn´t included Islas Malvinas, which were owned by Spain from Tordesillas and from being in the Spanish Indias Occidentales.
You have published what GB argued about the 1749 attempt, but it´s just the argument of the british part. The spirit of Utrecht was against the silent occupation by GB of all the lands that they found desert, despite the rights of other powers. You find that spirit in the writing of the Spanish Kings advisors.
And Argentina, as Méjico, Uruguay or any SA country DO INHERITED the spanish rights. That rights were argued and accepted in several border conflicts.
Pheel,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Via the 1670 treaty Spain recognised all English possessions in the Americas, it contained no reciprocal recognition of Spanish territories and most of them were never Spanish in the first place, so they cannot have been ceded in the first place. The Utrecht reference to 1670 was to confirm that 1670 was still valid. But it's not restrictive. Neither 1670 nor 1713 placed any restrictions on acquiring new territories after they were signed.
The Falklands were not Spanish territory at the time Utrecht was signed. Tordesillas was never recognised as valid by other countries. Treaties do not imposed obligations on non-signatories, and in any case, through article V of the Treaty of Münster 1648, Spain accepted that its territories were only those it actually held, not those allocated to it through Tordesillas. There was no Spanish occupation of the Falklands in 1648 or 1713 or any time in between.
Argentina did not inherit the Falklands, what South American countries agreed among themselves is not relevant to this issue. What is relevant is what happened between Spain and Argentina. Argentina achieved its independence by force without Spain's consent at a time there was no recognised right of a territory to secede without its parent state's consent. In fact Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its territories in the Americas until 1836 and when it recognised Argentina in 1859 and 1863 no explicit cession or transfer of the Falklands took place. A state cannot inherit from another state a territory that was never ceded to it.
OMG...
Sep 24th, 2010 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This history stuff sounds complicated........... but..............
If we follow the British “logic” presented to us in here about “hereditary rights” and “irrerelevance of other parties agreements”, then the Utrecht treaty can't be used by Britain to claim Gibraltar.
As far as I remember, this “Queen Anne” lassie was the last of the Stewards....
It means that the treaty is null and void because that other family (the Hamburgers:-) usurped the British trone.
Right?
dab,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The treaties of 1670 and Utrecht 1713 looked for define which territories GB will keep. Spain understood that setting that, you will not try to colonize new lands in the area.
If Spain didn´t think that Malvinas were Spanish, would never tried to defend them in 1749.
Seems that GB has slided between the lines of the treaties better than Spain in what it was supposed to be peacefully settled between both parts. The comments circa 1800 at the foot of the copy of the Teatry protest about this attitude of the silent british occupation of territories supposed to be Spanish by the Treaties of 1670 and 1713, that was spanish goodwill.
If Spain had rights to Malvinas, those rights passed to Argentina. First, by the Primera Junta of 1810 (no attempt to be independent but local government in name of the cautived King), and later in the treaties of 1863 you ve named.
That´s why we took the 1810 debts, rights and obligations of the Spain Crown in the territory as ours. All historical facts were built on that belief. Not observed then and assumed by all the actors, including GB.
I have to praise your knowledge and Justin´s, perhaps you have a job in the issue?
The fact is that GB expelled Provincias Unidas by force not by right, and that was the final rational.
I am asking myself if the 1982 change of hands hasn´t the same (i)rational. Just a matter of success?
Pheel,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sure you have been educated from an early age that the Treaty of Tordesillas conferred rights upon Spain and I'm sure Spain equally had pretensions on the same.
Let me ask you one question. Under the Treaty of Tordesillas South Georgia is on the Portuguese side. So how can you claim South Georgia either on that basis or from the basis of an inheritance from Spain given that Spain has never claimed South Georgia or ever disputed British Sovereignty? Your claim is not even consistent.
As Dab has pointed out, no one accepted it and you cannot force anyone to accede to a treaty they were not a party to. Tordessillas confers no rights upon Spain, to quote Carlos Escudé
”Argentina's alleged sovereignty over these lands (and waters) is justified in pseudo-juridical and pseudo-historical terms, such as the 1494 Treaty of Tordesillas between Spain and Portugal, that attempted to divide between these two countries all of the world to be discovered. The fact that such a bilateral treaty can never award title, not even to Spain (much less to Argentina, its “heir”), and that even if we were to take it seriously, it is no longer valid because it was declared “null as if it had never been signed” by both the Treaty of Madrid of 1850 and the Treaty of San Ildefonso of 1777, is never considered in the texts, that present Argentina's sovereignty over these territories as undebatable dogma that cannot be challenged without breach of patriotism.”
Spain did not have sovereignty over the Falklands and there is nothing in Utrecht that would have prevented the British from settling there. Bluff and bluster and claiming what isn't yours was de rigeur in those days.
No I don't have a job in history, purely personal study and interest.
Oh and Think be a good troll and go back in your cave.
Justin, No, I have been not a Tordesillas hooligan.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I try to put in the shoes of those then, trying to understand their rationals.
That approach puts light on the will of each actor and to consequent understand the reactions and claims.
I can see organized will and opportunism from your side, squeezing any corner of ambiguity and sustaining it by force. Fait-accompli disciples.
Sleepy spanish being surprised again and again in their understanding of what to expect from you and treaties.
Ahhhh, the usual excuse. “Sleepy spanish being surprised again and again in their understanding of what to expect from you and treaties.” I wonder if it had anything to do with the fact that Spain had tried for hundreds of years to destroy England (and failed) but had recently been saved (by Britain) from being a Napoleonic puppet.
Sep 24th, 2010 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pheel,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no ambiguity here. The Treaty of Tordesillas was proclaimed by just about the most corrupt pope that ever existed, it was recognised by no one, there was no Spanish settlement in the Falklands and nothing in those treaties., loophole or otherwise to stop the British exploring or settling.
If you wish to claim you inherited something on the basis of a corrupt an degenerate pope, well that is your prerogative. Don't expect it to be taken seriously.
Pheel,
Sep 24th, 2010 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The 1670 treaty is here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203.image.f41.tableDesMatieres
Nowhere does at contain any “everything else in the Americas is Spanish or Portuguese” clause. At the time there were vast areas of the Americas that had not yet been settled by any Europeans.
The 1863 treaty in Spanish
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203.image.f41.tableDesMatieres
and English:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k937203.image.f41.tableDesMatieres
Why do you think article I makes reference to the 1836 decree?
Article IV
“The Argentine Confederation considering that in thus acquiring the rights and privileges of the Crown of Spain it likewise contracts all the duties and obligations thereof solemnly recognizes as consolidated debt of the Republic as much privileged as any according to what is spontaneously established in its laws all debts of whatever kind they may be contracted by the Spanish Government and its authorities in the ancient provinces of Spain which now form or may in future constitute the territory of the Argentine Republic evacuated by Spain on the 25th of May 1810”
“which now form”
The Falklands were not part of Argentina at the time
“the territory of the Argentine Republic evacuated by Spain on the 25th of May 1810”
The Falklands were evacuated by Spain in 1811 not 1810.
You do know that the UK acted as intermediary in convincing Spain to recognise the independence of the S. American republic because for many years Spain had refused to do so? If there had been any question of the treaty including the Falklands, the UK would have said something. In any case a state cannot cede what it does not possess, and Spain exercised no possession of the Falklands in 1859 or 1863.
#206 - Tordesillas was only recognised by Spain and Portugal and therefore has no effect on anyone else!
Sep 25th, 2010 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's the words of Treaties and Laws that count, not the 'spirit'.
#208 Think, I'd leave history alone if I was you ... not your strongest subject :-)
#211 Pheel didn't answer the question about South Georgia :-)
Well done dab ..... you're good!
argies beware
Sep 25th, 2010 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0A Little Dab'll Do Ya!”. :-)
Dab highlights the problems caused by orthodox propaganda and dogma being indoctrinated in schools, even when it is known to be false or flawed.
Sep 25th, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0The reality of the history, the treaties and their meanings are there for all to read from the source documents; but it takes considerable effort to disentangle the mess of much mis-reporting on all sides.
Unfortunately, orthodox propaganda often seeks to promote a nationalist political ideological agenda, rather than actual fact and the truth, and this continues right up to the modern day and occurs from those representing all points of view, sometimes intentionally, often innocently.
I sincerely hope Argentines, Islanders and Britons can overcome these artificial barriers to agree a common understanding in the context of the modern world and find ways to live peacefully and work together in the 21st. Century.
It eludes them yet, but I'm convinced a spirit of friendship and cooperation is the way to pursue these goals, and I hope this is the conviction which prevails in the long run on all sides to amicably resolve issues satisfactorily for everyone.
For me, the greater the dialogue between peoples and individuals, the more likely that goal will be achieved.
Fingers crossed.
#217
Sep 25th, 2010 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hallelulah, amen brother.
Someone gets it.
#217 “Dab highlights the problems caused by orthodox propaganda and dogma being indoctrinated in schools, even when it is known to be false or flawed.”
Sep 25th, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are right!!! Malvinas is in the Northen hemisphere not in the South, the islands are adjacent to Scotland and England and the British never invaded any land outside their island in Europe.
an aborted mobilization against Chile due to a territorial dispute over the tiny Beagle Channel islands, which --as in the case of the Falklands conflict-- was accompanied by a bellicose indoctrination that was only an intensification of the traditional anti-Chilean contents of the Argentine educational curriculum
Sep 25th, 2010 - 09:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Chile?
You'd have done better Ale if first you recognised that the 'Malvinas' do not exist .... the Falkland Islands however are in the south Atlantic but too far away to be described as 'adjacent' to anything else and they were never 'invaded' by the British. As British property they have been invaded by the Spanish (1770) and Argentina (1832 & 1982). On each occassion the British chased off the cheeky little trespassers.
Sep 26th, 2010 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
#219 Ale. If your fatuous parody was true, you'd have a point, but I'm sorry, truly it isn't and you don't. It did make me smile though. Full marks for sarcasm.
Sep 26th, 2010 - 07:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am talking about the need for deliberate inclusion of all facts to present an unbiased view of all sides viewpoints, rather than presenting ideological propaganda, to allow individuals the freedom to make up their own minds and opinion based on the whole facts, rather than the state enforcing uniform belief in state policy. No modern democratic country should compulsory indoctrinate political ideology to its children. Not in Britain, Argentina, the Falklands, or anywhere else.
Freedom from political ideology - unless taught in the context that it is political ideology and not historical fact - and access to the whole facts is absent from this debates between the different peoples and the presence of political ideology fundamentally colours the outcome and prevents progress by consensus.
I think this would help all sides come to a consistent common view and find a common way forward. To do this successfully, I feel a spirit of friendship and cooperation is needed on all sides, with an aim that the common good of all sides should be the outcome.
I live in hope of an amicable outcome for all and a happy friendly shared future together.
You're absolutely right Domingo, what I find most frustrating is the absolute refusal to actually discuss the matter at hand. Whenever, you pose a question that the historical record contradicts Argentine claims, the response is usually to ignore it, usually in favour of posts like the one you saw from Ale. There is no interest in discussions merely an opportunity to broadcast propaganda.
Sep 26th, 2010 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have you read Escude's paper on the matter?
Bit of an eye opener,and explains a lot about the Argie mindset
Sep 26th, 2010 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.argentina-rree.com/documentos/culture_escude.htm
To quote Hitler from Mein Kampf:
Sep 26th, 2010 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying.”
Modern governments have a responsibility to refrain from the use of the “big lie” propaganda technique, i.e. the repeated articulation of a complex of events that justify subsequent action, where the descriptions of these events have elements of truth, and the “big lie” generalizations merge and eventually supplant the public's accurate perception of the underlying events.
Criminal legislation against its use and other mendacious propaganda should be part of all modern democracies legal framework, so that those that perpetrate falsehoods using these techniques can be held accountable for their wrong-doing.
In modern times, few political leaders can truthfully claim they have never used the “big lie” propaganda technique to wrongly portray, justify
and defend questionable foreign and domestic policy decisions.
Certainly British and Argentine politicians are guilty of using the “big lie”. It's time for it to stop.
@225 Domingo. The quote from Mein Kampf is useful as it explains the concept very well.
Sep 26th, 2010 - 10:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0As time has passed, we can see that WMD may have been a “big lie” expounded by U.S. and U.K. leaders. Although I still wonder whether it was so much a “big lie” as a “big fear”.
My question is: Are you of the opinion that both Argentine and British politicians have used the “big lie” in relation to the Falkland Islands? All your comments seem to be effectively neutral.
(225) Domingo
Sep 26th, 2010 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It always amazes me that people who ”think” they can ”think” are so easily fascinated and adopt so uncritically Hitler’s own concepts.
Hitler’s own personal conception, the “Big Lie concept” was his excuse to denigrate the moral and politics of the East and the Jews…..
You just used it to defame the moral and politics of the North and the South…….
Just for those that have not read Mein Kampf......, here is the “nazi paragraph” that precedes Domingo’s “intelligent” quote:
“But it remained for the Jews, with their unqualified capacity for falsehood, and their fighting comrades, the Marxists, to impute responsibility for the downfall precisely to the man who alone had shown a superhuman will and energy in his effort to prevent the catastrophe which he had foreseen and to save the nation from that hour of complete overthrow and shame. By placing responsibility for the loss of the world war on the shoulders of Ludendorff they took away the weapon of moral right from the only adversary dangerous enough to be likely to succeed in bringing the betrayers of the Fatherland to Justice.”..........
Be “vigilant” when taking Adolf out of context………….
You may end loving many of his ideas….
As many here do……………
@223, 224: No, I had not read Escude's study. I have now. It's an interesting survey & conclusion for one viewpoint; illustrating how Argentina, like many states to a greater or lesser degree including the UK no doubt, may have abused their education system for biased political ideological indoctrination, rather than unbiased education
Sep 26th, 2010 - 01:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@226: To an extent, it would appear so. How much is innocent misrepresentation & how much is fraudulent is hard to say.
One opinion may consider evidence good, others bad. Opinions vary. In the instance of the whole facts being apparent, governments should ensure their education system & ministries report the whole facts accurately, without bias, spin or other distortion
There is quite a contrast between the detailed treatment of the history of the Falklands in the Argentine education system & its syllabi & its practical absence from the UK. If politics is taught in history/geography lessons it should be identified as politics & represent all views equally unbiasedly
At a governmental level the UK until recently had no concern over the actual facts & in true Westminster style never cared for the detail nor the opinion of the Islanders or the wider UK electorate. Rather it concerned itself with its own foreign policy objectives, whatever they were at the time, as the winds of politics changed. I think it's only the Islanders themselves standing up for their rights & 1982, which has forced the change of UK policy to deal with the facts, rather than the FCO's opportunist concept of Realpolitik
@227: Think, as you probably know, the use of the ellipsis “...” indicates an intentional omission of words in the original text, hence my use of it to save word count as Hitler's original description of the “big lie” concept & his anti-semitism/marxism is not necessary to communicate its concept or its continued use as a propaganda technique today. Indeed, many fascist regimes of the period, including Nazi Germany used it
(228) Domingo
Sep 26th, 2010 - 01:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your many previous posts, where you repeatedly mention Nazi Germany and Fascism always in conjunction with Argentina, are not “Elliptical” at all.
Nor is this one…………..
You are quite late Domingo...........That was partially true until the early 80’s, (as Dr. Escudé’s study reasonably argues) but not any more.
So, if your intention is to be of any use, I would suggest you (and many of the other posters in here) to try to catch up with the last 25 years of Argentinean reality.
But if your intention is just to “troll by faking neutrality” then……...
Mate….you are doing a good job.
Think, you troll all the time, without any useful contribution, now go back to your cave, the grown ups are talking.
Sep 26th, 2010 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THIMC
Sep 26th, 2010 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A little difference between posters…………
When I (Mr. “Think”) post a link, it usually is from a respected “Anglo-Saxon adversary” source (like the Falklands Islands Government, the Financial Times, the Guardian and other British papers and even from the British FCO) or from fairly neutral Wikipedia entries
When (Mr. “JustinKuntz”) posts a link it is usually like the one below……….. A Wikipedia entry written mostly by…………Mr. “JustinKuntz” himself…. (What a surprise!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders&limit=500&action=history
Not wonder that he was kicked out of the Spanish Wikipedia after repeated vandalism against articles like the one below……….
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders&limit=500&action=history
No use to address this troll directly….
Many well intentioned British, Spanish and Argentinean Wikipedians have give up on him………..
I rest my case
Ah yes,
Sep 26th, 2010 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think likes to portray himself as the voice of reason. Yet anytime an interesting and productive discussion arises he feels the need to derail it. As a self-avowed Peronista, he has no interest in seeing the issues resolved, his sole interest is in seeing the dispute perpetuated as Peron himself observed “as it useful to unite people”. He knows it is the Big Lie.
And if you can't beat them whilst hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym he trawls the Internet trying to dig up dirt on people. When he can't find any dirt he has to take things out of context.
I didn't write the article on the Origins of the Falkland Islanders, the current article was substantially written by Apcbg, a Bulgarian, I have merely tweaked the English here and there and repaired vandalism. Sadly Falklands articles are frequently subject to vandalism as the Peronistas and ardent Malvinists can't bear the truth. Please do check out the article history.
He claims I'm banned from the Spanish wikipedia, no I'm not. What he calls vandalism was removing unsubstantiated allegations portrayed as fact. An act supported bywikipedia policies.
Such is the grip of the Malvinistas on the Spanish wiki, the article Think refers to still reports unsuntantiated claims of war crimes as fact, alleges the British had nuclear weapons and the British possessed the deactivation codes for Exocets. All of which are fiction.
But he only resort to ad hominem personal attacks as he utterly unable to face up to the fictions perpetuated in Argentina as “history” to support Argentina's utterly illogical irredentist claims.
Tell me Think what kind of sad little man are you that you have to go to such lengths, and how utterly sad are you to laud every twisted action your Government dreams up to bully and intimidate a small peaceful island community. Is your life really that empty, I pity you I really do.
Now if you don't mind, crawl back in your hole and allow others to talk.
Poor little Justin......
Sep 26th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is always somebody else’s fault……
Always somebody else’s fault……
Are you sure that you are not Argentinean??? :-)))
Rightly or wrongly, I think there is common ground between the Argentines, Islanders and British & that relations do not need to be adversarial or confrontational, when it comes to the Falklands
Sep 26th, 2010 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am acutely aware that discussions of all sides particular dogmas often falls apart into name calling, thus is perhaps best largely avoided
Perhaps if the individuals can dialogue on things they agree with, like honest teaching without a political ideological agenda, then perhaps one can come to an accord on more contentious issues? Or at least listen to one another's viewpoints without angry dismissal, but rather with enquiring interest and respect? That is a worthy aim. Hence my intent to avoid potentially overly contentious issues to avoid intolerant rebukes on all sides
Also I thought it only fair to avoid criticism of one party when all parties are culpable of the similar failings or short-comings at some point in their respective histories
I'd like to see a debate which is productive in producing an honest exchange of view and experiences, respectful of one another.
I think I'd be correct to say the majority of my posts have been to post points of view on resolutions 1514(XV), 1654(XVI) and 2065(XX) regarding their applicability to the Falklands, often in debate with Think. I think we agreed to disagree
I have previously raised the concern of indoctrination & the state in Argentina & the popular methods used in fascist regimes of the 1930s, i.e. their common use of nationalistic, authoritarian militaristic revanchism & irredentism in the teaching of political ideologies in history & geography lessons. Escude appears to confirm this link
I am also aware that democratic Argentina has also been forthright about it's past through the reports of CEANA (Commission for the Clarification of Nazi Activities in Argentina):
http://www.bnaibrith.org.ar/PDFs/CEANAINFORMEFINAL.pdf
In lieu of an Escude update, a contemporary account of the teaching of Malvinas is welcome
No Think, the written record is quite clear, where I'm wrong I'll admit to my mistakes and apologise. You've got nothing but smears and innuendo.
Sep 26th, 2010 - 06:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym, got the balls to publish your real name?
Domingo, if anything the teaching of the Falklands history has gotten worse, under the Kirchners there has been a revamp of the curriculum to ensure the Argentine version is indoctrinated into yet another generation.
Breaking News…..
Sep 26th, 2010 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeahhhh ….Please send the “Little Prince”… Handsome fella……Makes nice headlines………..
http://www.infobae.com/mundo/538469-101515-0-El-principe-William-piloto-las-fuerzas-britanicas-Malvinas
More Nice Headlines ……………Transocean, the rig operator at the centre of Brutish Petroleum’s Gulf of Mexico oil disaster could join the rush for black gold in the FALKLANDS.
http://www.infobae.com/mundo/538469-101515-0-El-principe-William-piloto-las-fuerzas-britanicas-Malvinas
Seems that the Spanish Fishing Armada is feeling the heat:
http://www.infobae.com/mundo/538469-101515-0-El-principe-William-piloto-las-fuerzas-britanicas-Malvinas
@228 Domingo. Very instructive. So now perhaps you could answer my question. Are you of the opinion that both Argentine and British politicians have used the “big lie” in relation to the Falkland Islands?
Sep 26th, 2010 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0While we're at it. Do you consider that it is of note that “There is quite a contrast between the detailed treatment of the history of the Falklands in the Argentine education system & its syllabi & its practical absence from the UK.”?
Typhoon,
Sep 26th, 2010 - 07:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could make a case that the FCO told the “Big Lie” when it publicly stated that the islanders wishes were paramount, whilst at the same time negotiating with the Argentine Government to make the islands dependent upon Argentina, with the long term goal of dumping the islands on Argentina in contravention of the islanders wishes. The islanders were subjected to some quite Machiavellian schemes by the FCO and to this day they have something of a bad smell about them in the Falklands.
What is difficult for someone from the UK to understand is the level of state control over what is taught in Argentine schools. Just about every aspect of the curriculum is controlled in a way that would never be acceptable in the UK. Equally the Argentines cannot understand that in the UK the curriculum isn't controlled and Brits commenting on the Falklands have done their own research.
@think
Sep 26th, 2010 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You missed this one
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/3145751/3billion-Falkland-Islands-oil-boost.html
That's why I have you...
Sep 26th, 2010 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My own Gyro Gearloose's “little helper”............
Did you read the line before last on the Sun's Article??
“SOURCES SAY THE UK WILL WANT HALF OF THE TAX TAKE”
So much for the “Falklanders Oil”
@238 Justin
Sep 26th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please allow Domingo to answer the questions I put to him.
Did you read the line before last on the Sun's Article??
Sep 26th, 2010 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, using the Sun for research LOL
@237: Insofar as Escude describes the use of the educational system and instruments of state, it seems clear Argentine politicians did engineer “big lie” propaganda to suit their nationalist political ideology, irrespective of evidence known to them which undermined or contradicted their revanchist irredentist indoctrination
Sep 26th, 2010 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Menem govt. was more moderate, but is discredited for its mishandling of the economy & also its reconciliatory policy towards the Falklanders
The Kirchner govts. appear little different to the previous juntas or Peronista govts. of the past except they are perhaps more radical & confrontational than any other; they were provocatively insensitive to the fact that Argentina initiated war when they demanded that the UK beg for forgiveness & apologise to the AR for dispatching its fleet without delay to liberate the Falklands whilst still with its standard fit of nuclear weapons even though these were removed before entering theatre. A case of blackwhite doublethink if there ever was one
Wives lost husbands, mothers lost sons & children lost fathers on both sides. They should all be alive today, living a happy life. It was robbed from them all. I don't think Argentines care that this has fundamentally altered British opinion against Argentina; democratic Argentina has never apologised to the UK for the deaths & destruction it caused when it was a military dictatorship. Rather than seeking reconciliation & cooperation, the Kirchener govts. appears bent on bellicose confrontation, on this issue of little practical import; this all appears due to the unshakeable grip of the “big lie” indoctrination of the past on the Argentines. However, Think says this is not so. I'd like to know why, as Escude & others provide clear evidence it is so.
I'd say Justin has it spot on regarding the high-handed contempt of the Falklanders' express wishes by the FCO & UK govt despite its clear duties under resolution 1514(XV) & 2065(XX) to aid the Falklanders
Thinks no lightweight on His choice of the broadsheets
Sep 26th, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you read the line before last on the Sun's Article??
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Freddiehamster.jpg
Sources say?
Sep 26th, 2010 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mmm, a story on Mercopress you go to elaborate lengths to rubbish. Yet you take the Scum as gospel. So what is it, you find an excuse to ignore what you don't like, anything you think supports your claims is gospel.
You'll be quoting the Sunday Sport next.
Estimado Domingo
Sep 27th, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“this all appears due to the unshakeable grip of the “big lie” indoctrination of the past on the Argentines”
I do not remember any of my teachers forcing me or anybody else to believe anything. In Argentina I was always free to read what I felt like it, including during our dictatorship government.
Is Mr Simon Jenkins argentinian or he was “indoctrinated” in Argentina?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
The British are not stupid…..
Sep 27th, 2010 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0They start their “Dirty Work” in the sewers……
Soon this story will flow out to the gutters ……….
Eventualy their “Sh**” will hit the fan………..
www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/money/city/3145751/3billion-Falkland-Islands-oil-boost.html
“SOURCES SAY THE UK WILL WANT HALF OF THE TAX TAKE”
So much for the “Falklanders Oil”
So much for their ”Self-determination”
:-)))
“ ... you find an excuse to ignore what you don't like, anything you think supports your claims is gospel...”
Sep 27th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0But of course, Think is an Argentine !
:-)
Profuse apologies for the Think tatic of spamming
Sep 27th, 2010 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ think
When I (Mr. “Think”) post a link in here, it usually is from a respected “Anglo-Saxon adversary” source (like the Falklands Islands Government, the Financial Times, the Guardian and other British papers
And the Sun :-)
Gotcha
I think Domingo has properly encapsulated the situation. Nothing more really needs to be said, except to Ale.
Sep 27th, 2010 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@246 Ale. If you are brought up in atmosphere where a particular scenario is the accepted belief, it matters not what else you read. Particularly if what you read suggests that your country is in the wrong. Such views would be dismissed as opposition propaganda. That is how the “Big Lie” works.
to all those pro-british, pro-falkland posters, l don't know why you even bother to argue with the argentines. the falklands are not their land & have never been their land. their arguments are illogical & if they can't come up with a valid counter argument to anything that you say, then they just ignore your remarks. all this shilly-shallying about whether the falklands are a colony or not & who did what to who, years ago has got absolutely nothing to do with the present falkland islands. if the falklands want to be or not to be a colony then that is not argentina's business.l do believe that tierra del fuego was settled(colonised)in part from the falklands, no? by the argentinians logic that island should be part of the british falklands too? & so what if the falklanders want to be british? what business is that of argentina? what if they wanted to be malaysian or congolese? argentina, you do not own the falklands, you never have owned the falklands. l think most of you poseurs are latin macho-men that cannot bear to be wrong. ......after all that, it is a pity as argentina has such great potential with all its resources to be a rich prosperous nation with a high living standard for all its people. whats wrong, argentina? l believe that in 1900 you had the highest living standard in the world. leave the falklands alone & fix your own country(would you like us to do it for you? comission basis of course!).
Sep 27th, 2010 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Future “Sun” Frontpage Titles........
Sep 27th, 2010 - 02:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oilcha!
Stick it up your ”Rockhopper!
Cameron ate my hamster!
Desire the Oil!
@251 Isolde. There is much that you say thatis quite correct. However, if you stay with us long enough, you will find that Argentines, and some other South Americans, seem to like circularity. Having disposed of the question of first claim (Britain in 1690), we then move on to the Spanish ejection of British settlers, followed by their return under threat of war with Spain. A subsequent British military withdrawal due to the American War of Independence, despite retaining sovereignty, is considered significant, although a similar Spanish withdrawal under similar conditions is not. A commercial venture, headed by a Frenchman, with British permission is seen as significant for the Argentine claim. The British objection to the illegal naming of this individual as governor is dismissed. The illegal “colony” was closed down by the United States following its acts of piracy. Despite this the United Provinces set up a new colony with a military garrison, obviously expecting military action, but current posters cannot accept that, when Britain returned, it only ejected the military garrison. The settlers were invited to remain, under British sovereignty, and most chose to do so. These events, and others, are attested by such things as ships' logs, Charles Darwin's diaries and so on. Irrelevant treaties are oft quoted, whilst relevant ones are dismissed.
Sep 27th, 2010 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They like to cite geography, geology or anything else they think will help. Since CFK's rantings at the UN, they cannot even understand that she has destroyed their whole claim, even had it existed, by saying that Argentina's claim is not historical.
As far as I can tell, the only route they haven't gone down (yet) is an assertion that their claim is ordained by God and revealed in a dream.
Sorry Typhoon, but I'm going to have to take issue with the last point ... after all Argentina claims that it inherited the sialnds from Spain which had got them via the Pope .... from God presumably :-)
Sep 28th, 2010 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin Kuntz, the poor scot clown!
Sep 28th, 2010 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0You said...“And you wonder why the islanders want nothing to do with Argentina.”...
- I've never done that! Since I'm here, I've always said that I don't give a sh*t about that. Like it or not, they live in argentine territory. When they understand it, we'll be able talk in a friendly way to resolve the issue and give them the authonomy they deserve for not being guilty of what their pirate ancestors did back in 1833.
@246: Fair comment. You are a primary source of evidence after all
Sep 28th, 2010 - 06:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0However on reading Escudé it is clear the Argentine state operated a compulsory policy “patriotic education” for political indoctrination of a nationalistic ideology, which Escudé describes as “territorial nationalism” which used for a political purpose to create an irredentist sense of “victimhood” due to a “myth of territorial loss”
Escudé concludes this is the reason why the Junta of 1982 had the political option of going to war in the Falklands was because the Argentine state had indoctrinated its people over many decades
Escudé points out that the teaching of the state's nationalistic territorial propaganda was compulsory & that all school texts were written specifically to teach that orthodox propaganda so that no contrary sources of information was possible
Therefore it would seem no Argentine was free to think what they liked because they had been strongly conditioned from an early age to believe an authoritarian state's propaganda. This is no different to what the totalitarian regimes of the USSR did in their education systems, i.e. rewrite their histories to suit their political masters view
School texts in free democracies tend to be written independently of state policy and a variety of conflicting sources are used, often from both sides in a dispute, where it is taught that historians must critically challenge source evidence and be unbiased. Geography lessons are not used to teach political view on territorial ownership, rather to teach the science of geography
Media sources were censored in Argentina & I would contend that most school children do not challenge what they are taught, even adults, rather it is accepted as the truth & unbiased on trust
Perhaps you can explain why elementary/primary school children were taught to chant the slogan “Las Malvinas son Argentinas!”?
I would suggest Simon Jenkins is motivated by personal politics, well versed in Argentine propaganda
“ .... Like it or not, they live in argentine territory...”
Sep 28th, 2010 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Er, no ... I think you may have to have another look at that jorgelito. It's the wrong answer. Try looking at who is in charge on the islands ... it may give your little brain a clue :-)
“Perhaps you can explain why elementary/primary school children were taught to chant the slogan “Las Malvinas son Argentinas!”?”
Sep 28th, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where as in the UK we are not taught much(if any, i can't remember any lessions) about the falklands war.
Most of the history i remember learning at school was medieval history and the world wars.
@253 Typhoon, thanks for your reply. l have read much about the Falkland lslands history & agree with you there. there are many holes in the Argentinean arguments. just a few examples
Sep 29th, 2010 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 01)the expulsion of civilians in 1833. it has been proved conclusively that they stayed(those that wanted to)& their blood must therefore run in the veins of the present Falklanders.& if they had been expelled....well they were trespassing anyway.
2)that they “inherited” the islands from Spain.....well the islands weren't Spains to inherit from in the first place & does that mean that everywhere Spain had overseas territory, it now belongs to Argentina?
what about the Philippines? that was Spanish for 400 years. does Argentina own the Philippines also? or Mexico or Colombia etc etc?
3)and of course then we get the constant indignation about what the Falklands are doing, drilling for oil(in their OWN territory),fishing(in their OWN waters)what business is it of Argentina if the people want to be British? they don't have to justify their nationality in order to live in the south atlantic. you do NOT own the south atlantic, Argentina. just 200kms out from the shore(as long as it does not overlap another country)& you do NOT own the sea bed beyond 200kms. please fix your own beautiful country & make it South America's showpiece as it should be. Maybe then the Falklanders might like to join you(l did say“maybe”!).
Isolde
Sep 30th, 2010 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse 01) no, the settlers were there with British permission, and they were invited to stay with British permission. It was the garrison that were trespassing - they were invited to leave!
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!