MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Post-82 Falklands generations ever more distant from Argentina
The “belligerent” policy of Argentina towards the Falklands/Malvinas Islands has only harvested the antipathy of the young generations of the Islands born since the 1982 conflict said elected Member of the Legislative Assembly Roger Edwards Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesThis is the reality, well articulated by the British journalist Simon Jenkins in the British newspaper “The Guardian”:
Oct 01st, 2010 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The right to self-determination of the islanders – long the obstacle to any deal with Argentina – has to be qualified. Intransigent in their response to the Ridley negotiations and backed by neo-imperialist rightwingers in the House of Commons, the islanders demanded and got their rescue by the 1982 task force and extravagant support ever since. They have rebuffed all efforts by later Buenos Aires mediators to re-establish contact”.
“In other words, 2,500 colonists cannot enjoy an unqualified veto on British government policy. Thatcher thought it was in Britain's interest to negotiate with Argentina in 1982, even when it was a dictatorship. Now that Argentina is a democracy that interest can hardly have diminished. Subsequent British governments knew this, but were too gutless to act on it”.
If you allow me, I want to suggest that answer on the note, and the words of Simon Jenkins. I think also it should be noted that the opinion of Jenkins, is not an opinion either, it is a qualified opinion. His resume speaks for him, and objectivity:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_Jenkins
JPL.
Simon Jenkins is a journalist with a book to sell !
Oct 01st, 2010 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0So much for objectivity.
The views of the islanders are paramount. The British Government recognises that and has the courage to stand up for them. Argentina is totally irrelevant in this. Argentina has never owned the islands and this long standing attempt to take what was never theirs diminishes the Argentines in the eyes of the world.
The Falkland Islanders will decide their own future and obviously from this article their nearest neighbour (400 km) will play no part in their decisions.
The Falkland Islands have never belonged to Argentina ... and I doubt they ever will !
Argentina has no right, and no hope!!
JPL, again with the view of Simom Jenkins?!
Oct 01st, 2010 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0If there are more than a handful of people in Britain who agree with what he writes, I would be very surprised.
Rather than British Governments being weak on the subject of the Falkland Islands, they have been, in the main, very strong in their stance that the future of the Falklands is in the hands of the Falkland Islanders. Their future will not to be decided by Britain and certainly not by Argentina.
Talk about intransigence
Oct 01st, 2010 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0But of course ...... why should we be anything else ?
Oct 01st, 2010 - 07:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0JPL, you put too much weight on the opinions of a single journalist and if you read any of the comments to his poorly researched, confused and contradictory Guardian article, you'd see exactly what Guardian readers thought of it.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 07:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0@4 Che. You're right. Argentina is incredibly intransigent.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 07:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have Jenkins we have Prof. Carlos Escudé, Ph.D.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People#The_Falklands_Will_Never_Be_Argentine
The amusing thing is these post-82 generations are the 7th, 8th and even 9th generations of Falkland Islanders. I bet 90% of Argentines can't claim to be more than 3rd generation.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0J.A. I think you've got a serious point there ... perhaps the Falkland islanders should consider putting forward a claim to sovereignty over Argentina ... they were quite obviously there first :-)
Oct 01st, 2010 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0LMFAO!!!
Oct 01st, 2010 - 08:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Aye, that would be something!
The biter well and truly bit!
The botox queen would trip over her lower lip!
consider putting forward a claim to sovereignty over Argentina
Oct 01st, 2010 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands have a good case, Argentina is only 300 miles away
the Argies were planted and if they dont like it they can go back to spain or italy
re 10, 11 & 12. what an absolutely spiffing idea. can l claim a large estancia on tierra del fuego? after all the Falklanders & British were there before the Argentinians
Oct 01st, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0(13) Isolde
Oct 01st, 2010 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0You could claim.... but it could take some time....
What about visiting us instead?
http://www.estanciaharberton.com/
Why would anyone want to tour that crappy looking house? There are much nicer estancias in near Buenos Aires.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Edwards:
Oct 01st, 2010 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As usuall, the one think your government does, is to play the victim, you insist on your ridiculous dream about a soposed renounce of our claim, you know perfectly that it wont happen, on the other hand, my government does not help with it's attitude when it ignores the islanders, this is why, like it or not, the actual scenario is the result of the intransigence of both parts of the conflict, dont be pathetic mr Edwards, and dont blame only our side.
Beside, if you are so sure that our claim is so nebulous , then i hope very soon that your government propose my country to take the cause to the international arbitration, ¿are you disposed to do it?,i have serious doubts regarding that fact.
axel arg: as I posted on another story to you, it is up to Argentina to take any case to the ICJ, not Britain. Stop whinging about the British and start pestering your own Government. However, to paraphrase you, I suspect that you'll find that they'll be none too keen!
Oct 01st, 2010 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your Governments might shout from the rooftops about the Argentine claim, but they know just how weak it is. Otherwise, why do you think they haven't already taken their claim to the ICJ?
Axel,
Oct 01st, 2010 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FIG doesn't have to play the victim, as your compatriot “Think” is fond of telling us, the Argentine Government does everything in its power to victimise the Falkland Islanders. As PomInOz points out above, the onus is actually on Argentina to take the claim to the ICJ. Even our ultra-cautious Beef bet his FOGL profits on Argentina losing.
“Established in 1945 by the UN Charter, the Court began work in 1946 as the successor to the Permanent Court of International Justice. The Statute of the International Court of Justice, similar to that of its predecessor, is the main constitutional document constituting and regulating the Court.”
Oct 01st, 2010 - 02:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 64/65 years, how many times has Argentina proposed taking the matter of the Falkland Islands to the ICJ?
So why doesn't Argentina go to the ICJ?
Oct 01st, 2010 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British could because they'd still have the 'self-determination' card to play if the result went against them on the history.
But Argentina will not. It only has the history card to play and it has doubts. The legal advisers have doubts. If they did not then Argentina would have played this card a long time ago and headed off to the ICJ.
So certain in public, so uncertain in private ... even the Argentine press has asked the question ... why does Argentina NOT go to the ICJ ??
Answer that Axel .. and your survey may actually have some meaning!
Actually, as I've pointed out elsewhere, axel's “survey” is mythical.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0POMINOZ. JUSTIN. TYPHON. HOYTRED.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I insist that some of you are confused and misinformed, in 1885, and in others oportunitys, my country proposed the u.k. to take the case to the international arbitration, and it rejected that posibility, ask your self why.
On the other hand, the u.k. proposed my country to take to an arbitration only the sandwich and the georgias islands, and my country rejected it, i think it was a big mistake, however the u.k. never mentioned about taking the malvinas cause to the arbitration, i wonder why, and you should do the same.
I could know during my survey, that when one country rejects the posibility of an arbitration, it's considered as very doubtfull it's soposed rights.
Beside, if self determination is a fundamental right, and it overrides any other question, i wonder why the resolutions of the u.n. recognizes that right only to people who are under colonial domination, regarding the islands, they are not under any colonial domination, this is wy i doubt about if is it applicable or not to the malvinas-falklands cause.
Maybe i am wrong with what i hold, because i am not an expert in international right, i only interpret what i read.
I insist again, that if the u.k. is so sure about it's rights, should propose my government to take the case to an int. arbitration.
My country recured in some oportunitys to that instance, some times it won, and others it lost, but i am sure that it's not going to reject that posibility.
Finally i would like to say that i dont agree on the posture of both sides, my gov. ignores the islanders, and the f.i.g never proposed any fair solution to finish with the conflict, they only argue about self determination, and have always refused to discuss with my country about the sovereignty, and never recognized our legitimate rights on the islands. The prouve of that, are the last words of mr edwards, he calls our claim as nebulous, i have no more to add.
axel arg: as I understand the 1884/1885 suggestion by the Argentine Government, the reason why the UK rejected it was because, as far as the UK was concerned, the matter had only recently (35 years before) been settled. Argentina accepted British sovereignty over the Falklands and that was the end of the matter.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not going to go much further with the legalities of self-determination with you. Suffice to say that the Argentine Government says and the C24 says that the Falkland Islands ARE under colonial domination! Therefore, according to your own Government, self-determination does apply in the case of the Falkland Islanders. In any event, your interpretation of what the UN says is not correct. The principle of self-determination, being one of the fundamental principles of the UN, is not one of strict interpretation (that is, it is not carved in stone). It is a moveable feast, applied whenever it can be by the ICJ, and the judicial systems of all free, democratic nations. Take a look at the Kosovo judgment if you disagree. It most certainly applies in the case of the Falkland Islanders.
As for taking the case to the ICJ, ok, I understand that you are saying that the UK should persuade Argentina to take the case there. But why should the UK have to persuade your country to do so? Irrespective of the UK's belief in its sovereignty over the Islands (and my belief is that the UK's position is by far the best of any claimants), it is in possession of the Islands. If Argentina wants this to change then it is incumbent on Argentina to take the case to the ICJ.
You seem like a fairly intelligent (if a somewhat indoctrinated) chap...so get on to your Government about it...
POMINOZ:
Oct 01st, 2010 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I dont care in absolut about the words of our govrnments or others, because both sides make omitions, this is why it's so important to survey.
Regarding the situaion of the islands, read the statement of chancellours, norma edwards, and gaving short before the u.n., on june 24th, search it in the archive, even they recognize that the islands are not under any colonial situation. anyway i insist that maybe self determination is applicable to our cause, but it does not mean it can't be submitted to an int. arbitration, even one expert in international right told me that, you can be a lawyer, but i dont think you know much more than her.
On the other hand, when you read my survey, you ''ll know why it can't be used a san excuse the agreement signed in 1850, to reject in 1885 an int. arbitration.
Beside like i said before, i could know during my survey that when one country rejects an int. arbitration, there are serious suspects of it's right on the territory in dispute,think about it.
When one country rejects arbitration?
Oct 01st, 2010 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you aware Axel that during the New York talks in 1982, the British proposed taking the issue to arbitration at the ICJ?
Argentina also rejected the results of arbitration twice, when it went against it. Sorry but in that respect Argentina has a pretty poor record.
In 1884/5 when Britain refused Argentina's request, the matter had been settled 35 years later and in the intervening time the British had invested a great deal of time and money. Given the situation had already been resolved as far as we were concerned why should they have agreed?
As your mythical survey still hasn't been published it sounds rather like you're attaching more significance to the event than it warramnts.
Ahem! Whatever the Islanders say, according to your Government, the Islands ARE colonial...I have no idea about your “chanceloours”...Whatever!
Oct 01st, 2010 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You do seem to be going back on what “self-determination” means, even though you know someone who knows what it means...blah,blah. blah, do it...explain what it means...come on...I give you 25 minutes to do it...do it...! Doooooo it......!
“Instead of trying to win our support, they’ve done exactly the opposite”
Oct 01st, 2010 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0- How hipocryte! We've tried to win their suport before, but they weren't interested! They just want Argentina to drop the claim and that's a fantasy dream!
This article is one more proff that MercoPress is part of the “Falklands propaganda”. Why doesn't MercoPress interview some politician of SouthAmerica in their articles? Why does MercoPress only does “copy and paste” about southamerican news from other media, but when it comes to Malvinas they have the “exclusive news”? Why do they have journalists in Malvinas, but don't have them in Buenos Aires? Why do they insist treating Malvinas as if it were another country? Why do they have a “fisheries section” wich is only of big importance to islanders, but doesn't have an “sport section” wich is important in any media? WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY???????
I know why! I got you MercoPress!
Comment removed by the editor.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This guy representing post war kelper generations is more hilarious than Fredy Storani as the head of UCR youth.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 09:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0think. just like argentina, speaks and writes crap, no english no comment, argentina lives in the shadow of brazil, and cannot cope with the fact, that they are civilised, and argentina is not, argentina clings to A past of dictatorship, but tries to prsent a future of normality.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the result is in fact , the same as before, no good, and cant be trusted.
the falklands will never be argentinian, but argentina will always be losers lolol
Argentina is not the shadow of Brazil. That's like saying UK is just a state of USA.
Oct 01st, 2010 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0P.S. Many in the US think that way! LOL
Axel, as I understand it Britain did not reject Argentina's suggestion in 1884/85. Rejection would have involved the giving of a reason why.
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The suggestion was in fact ignored ....
As for the 'colonial' status of the islands .... if you are correct and the islands are not under a colonial situation then they are no longer the concern of C-24 and your country loses the only real international forum it has (even though the C-24 doesn't amount to much these days)!
And jorgy boy is quite correct ... Argentina is so far behind Brazil that it's nowhere near Brazil's shadow ! Compare the GDP figures for example.
“ ... Why do they insist treating Malvinas as if it were another country?...”
Because it practically is :-)
Jorgebobo, nobody said Argentina is a shadow of Brazil. It certainly is in the shadow of Brazil though. I know it's hard for you to get any kind of perspective from a little aldea like Comodoro...
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0re #22 axel arg. what a load of gobble-de-gook. of course the f.i.g will not discuss sovereignty. they are their own sovereign country. and you have NO legitimate rights over the Falklands. how would you like it if another country kept making claims to your land? l despair with you people. you will have to get it through your brain that the Falklands do NOT belong to Argentina & never have. it is nothing to do with you if the land is a colony or not. lf the people of the Falklands want to walk around in the nude ITS NOT YOUR BUSINESS! please don't go away mad, just go away! concentrate on making something of your own country(which doesn't include the Falkland lslands).have a nice day!
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Starting from (22):-
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Am I right in thinking that in 1884/1885, Argentina's proposed arbitrator was Paraguay? Even given that the matter had, in Britain's view, been settled 35 years earlier, why would the matter be taken to somewhere like Paraguay?
It is, of course, true that when a country repeatedly refuses to submit its claim to arbitration, it has doubts about its case. So why does Argentina constantly refuse to take its claim to the ICJ or state that it will not accept any judgement?
There is the matter of self-determination. According to Argentina and C24, the Falklands is a colony. If it's not a colony, it shouldn't be on C24's list and is no concern of C24.
It is, naturally, a shame that FIG won't discuss matters with Argentina. But then Argentina doesn't recognise FIG as the legitimate government and won't discuss anything with it. Seems to me that Argentina has painted itself into a corner. It won't discuss matters with FIG, FIG won't accept transfer of sovereignty as a pre-condition, Britain won't discuss anything with Argentina without the agreement of FIG.
Anyway, enough with axel's mythical survey and his equally mythical resolution A/64/106, which isn't a resolution but a document relating to the appointment of members of a Joint Inspection Unit.
As for Islander “support” for the Argentine position? Let's see now. After around 150 years of claiming the Islands, Argentina decided to try the “conciliatory” tack for a few years. FIG was prepared to make agreements but not to accede to Argentina's continued claims for sovereignty. Who threw their toys out of their pram and returned to the status quo ante?
The truth is Argentina can't win because it can't help losing. (Note: “losing” not “loosing”).
What I'd really like is for axel to send his mythical survey to his government. Then, whilst losing, they could also look even more like complete pillocks.
love that word “pillocks”! my grand dad used to use it!
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is interesting that the Argentine posters on these forums have now taken to Mercopress bashing. You see, when their arguments are continually undone they have to find some way of blaming their failure on another factor outside of their control. In this cased it is Mercopress and they have CFKs exampmle of attempting to control the media to follow.
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 11:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0In addition they cannot bear to see that the Argentine policy towards the Islands is completly impotent. At the AGM on 30th September RKH have indicated that they are planning to go into oil production at Sea Lion in the not to distant future. Argentina's approach is simply hardening the Islanders and they will forge ahead with no concern of the attitude on the noisy neighbours.
No one is stopping the FI from developing their ecomony and there are plenty of Institutional and Private Investors willing to support them in their venture. Argentina has the opportunity to collaborate but their partnership is not required.
If anyone wants to view the presentation from the AGM and see the massive upside in RKH then the presentation can be found here.
www.rockhopperexploration.co.uk/pdf/AGM_2010.pdf
I love the last line - “Board believes significant upside potential”
Perhaps Jihad Jorge, Billy Hayes or Gassy could put a few quid on RKH and they might be able to afford their psychiatry bills!
@36 Isolde
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do trust we don't have the same age relationship. Should I change my screen name to Tristram?
POMINOZ. HOYTRED. J. A. ROBERT. JUSTIN.
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fistly, i didn't know that in 1982 the u.k. proposed to my country to take the malvinas case to the arbitration of the icj, i will find out about it, because i dont believe in your words.
Regarding mu survey, it's the 10th time that i say that i will try to publish it before the end of this year, i have a lot to study, and i dont have so much time.
I insist that when you read my investigation, you will know why, the agreement signed in 1850, is just a pathetic excuse to reject or ignore the arbitration of 1885, it's a very long issue to explain here, and i dont have enough space.
About self determination, it's evident that yo dont want to understand that i said that maybe that right is applicable to our cause, i know what self determination means, but i can't assure that it's applicable to the islanders, because i am not an expert in inernational right, i only interpret what i read.
Only an international arbitration has enough authority and competence to affirm or deny that fact.
Finally, if some of you think that my country is in the shadow of brasil then explain why, in the last 8 years, our economy had a larger growth than the brasilian's, in fact, this year, our growth is going to fourth of the world, behing china, india and peru.
This is obvious that some of you only swallow most your idiot propaganda, and dont discern anything, ask your self why you have that moron behaviour.
Axel - Brazil's GDP is in the top 10 countries in the world ... Argentina's struggles to stay in the top 30 ....you should be able to work it out!
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ .. the agreement signed in 1850, is just a pathetic excuse to reject or ignore the arbitration of 1885...”
Nope, an agreement to deal with ALL the problems is just that .. no good coming back 40 years later and whinging about it! Although whinging is what Argentina appears to do best!
LOL! Even Mongolia is moving ahead of you!!!
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And making me a fair few bob!!
Cadfael - are you in MATD as well? They are doing pretty well and have made a fairly impressive paper profit! Just waiting for outcome of DT2 and the results of the oil find on DT1!
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Happy investing!
Isn't it funny how axel, as with all Argies, simply ignores points to which he has no answers, even in his mythical survey?
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah surveys! Descriptive research - methodologies for the lazy!
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, the suggestion was tabled at the New York talks in 1982 to take the issue to the ICJ in 1983. Please do check it out, just like I encouraged you to check out Darwin and Fitzroy. I note you still don't acknowledge the expulsion myth.
Oct 02nd, 2010 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOYTRED. JUSTIN.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0HOYTRED: You can't be more ignorant, or just stupid, ¿how can you compare brasil with my country?, brasil is 3 times bigger than my country, and it's population is is even 5 times bigger than ours.
You can compare argentina with brasil, when i refuted that idiot assertions about if my country is in the shandow from brasil, i did it because i wanted to you to know that our economy had a larger growth than the brasilian one, and that's all, so, what some morons like you say, is just a comment wich only has bad faith, and no more.
Regarding the agreement that you argue, i wont say no more about that, just wait to read what i investigate, and fater you'll get your conclutions.
JUSTIN: I will find out what you say, it's very important, and regarding the expulsion, i already told you that i know that all the settlement was not expeled, that's one of the arguments that i included in my investigation, only our authoritys from the islands were expeled, and all those people who wanted to go with our authoritys.
Axel ... I disagree, I'm sure that I can be more ignorant if I put my mind to it!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 04:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina's official growth figures are the source of some speculation as your Government doesn't allow outside agencies such as the IMF, to check the figures! Was it Churchill who said, “ there are lies, damn lies and statistics” ?
So .... why doesn't Argentina take its spurious claim to the Falkland Islands to the ICJ ? 1885 was a long time ago ... they could have suggested it again, no?
Well, british and islanders commentators.... if you hate so much to Argentina and South American countries, why don't you go back to your beloved England? You are British citizens, and love your country... your true home is there (London, Yorkshire, Birminghma, maybe Liverpool), not South America... Good, go back home. England is your home, and avoid quarrelling in the lonely Southern Hemisphere. It is a true pity that we can be friends with English businessmen, and much better, English artists and musicians, but not with narrow minded people that cannot avoid the unavoidable: these islands will sooner or later return to full Argentine sovereignty, as it happened with Hong Kong, and will also happen with Gibraltar. Commmentator (14) has a good idea... but how to travel there? Impossible.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0(47) Hoyt
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Incredible how many people in here mistake you for an ignorant…
I guess they have difficulty to see through the haze of your fine ironic style and your Rhodesian approach to reality……..
For your info:.... Our economy minister, on his meeting last week in New York with bankers, economists and IMF representatives, cracked following joke:
“The only figures you don’t question are our official growth figures, maybe because our Bonds are linked to them”
Lots of laughter followed, …………..no one commented it further….
Hey, look everyone. “AXEL'S SURVEY” has turned into “AXEL'S INVESTIGATION”. Equally mythical, I'm sure.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0And still “axel” doesn't answer points put to him.
I see we have a new drongo on the board. Assuming he isn't an old drongo under a new name.
Thing is “hrubini” I, and others, do have answers to the knotty questions you raise. However, it wouldn't be right to give those answers, at least in my case, until I have completed my project. I'm sure you won't mind hanging on for a year or two, or five, or ten, until I've completed my project.
Think - I'm just misunderstood :-)
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welcome Hubris but I should point out that England is just one part of our Great Britain ... there's also Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland, Jersey, Guernsey, Gibraltar, Isle of Man, Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Oceon Territor, British Virgin Islands, Caymen Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn, St. Helena, Ascension, Tristan da Cunha, the Turks and Caicos, a couple of chunks of Cyprus and of course, the Falkland islands, South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and our Antartic Territory.
Home is everywhere :-)
Axel, as you say, your country and population are much smaller than that of Brazil. Your economy is much smaller than that of Brazil. No matter how much better your growth rate is, a small economy growing faster than a big economy still remains a small economy. The Argentine economy is in the shadow of Brazil's. It's a no-brainer. Fairly obvious.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wooooow…
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LONDON, Oct 3 (Reuters) - Falkland Islands oil explorer Rockhopper Exploration is planning a $150-$200 million rights issue to fund more wells in the waters off the South Atlantic islands, the Sunday Times reported.
www.cnbc.com/id/39483854
Nice.....But…… What the ”heck” is a ”Right Issue? Lets Google.......
“Companies usually opt for a rights issue either when having problems raising capital through traditional means or to avoid interest charges on loans.”
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rights_issue
Ahhhhhhhh………
”A rights issue is a way in which a company can raise money by selling new shares. These shares are offered to existing shareholders at a much cheaper price than the current market price.
“Wa hey!” says you, “I thought there was no such thing as a free lunch; this looks pretty close to me.”
‘fraid not pal. I’ll save the full maths lesson for another day, but trust me on this. Freebies from the City are usually limited to pens, mouse mats and stress balls. Although you get these shares ‘on the cheap’ those nasty guys in the City will adjust (mark down) the price of your existing shares to take account of all this, a sort of robbing you to pay you.”
www.paddypowertrader.com/blog/index.php/economics/2009/04/06/what-is-a-rights-issue/
Ohhhhhhh………..
Uhhhhhhhhh…….
no problem, sold mine for a fat profit!!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(54) Yeah…. Sure….......................
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Noticed your comment the other day….In which you were bragging that your shares would rise 25% before 10:00 AM………………………
!!! On a Saturday !!! :-)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))
Think - I have already seen the article about the rights issue and I am looking forward to picking up these shares if they are issued as an Open Offer. Considering the current price then this will be achieved with minimal dilution therefore the long term sp will be unaffected. In fact as the money will allow for a full appraisal of Sea Lion then this injection of capital will mean more upward pressure to the sp - look at the last RKH share isssue for evidcne that a rights issue does not depress the sp.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All that needs to be decided on is when the shares will be issued. As the cash is not urgently needed as RKH will not drill again until 2011 then it appears best to wait for a re-issued CPR with P50 reserve upgrade which will possibly double the sp then the rights issue will mean even fewer shares being issued. As RKH is not yet an oil producer then gaining a bank loan is not the correct course of action to finance further exploration.
There is no shortage of Instutional or Private Investors who are willing to part wth their cash and it is nice to see Bank of America Merrill Lynch is going to be their new corporate broker.
This company is going from strength to strength and has a bright futre as do RKH investors. A move to the FTSE 250 in 2011 is a big possibility. As RKH plans to go into production then it will eventually be in a position to self fund exploration accross it's licence and possibly farm into other licences as it already has done with DES.
Happy days :-)
In the interest of the less “Hyper Optimistic” I Include the Sunday Times article.(03/10/10)
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rockhopper Exploration, the Falkland Islands oil explorer, is gearing up for a $200m rights issue to fund further wells in the waters off the South Atlantic.
This includes an intended move from the junior Alternative Investment Market to the FTSE 250 list early next year.
Argentina’s president, Cristina Kirchner, accused the companies of violating its national sovereignty — Argentina claims the islands are “occupied” by Britain.
So far, Rockhopper has had the most success. Its shares have soared since it first reported success in May with the Sea Lion field, which it claims holds up to 240m barrels of recoverable oil.
Before the discovery the firm was worth £70m. As of last Friday, it is valued at £885m, raising concerns among some investors that its shares have become overheated.
City sources said the company is preparing to launch a rights issue within the next six weeks to raise between $150m and $200m that it will need to drill more wells to establish the size of its field and bring them to the stage where they can start producing.
The company hopes to step up to the FTSE 250 next year, which will give it exposure to a wider selection of potential investors.
It is understood that the company has chosen Bank of America Merrill Lynch, though it has yet to make the official announcement. Rockhopper declined to comment.
It is thought that some banks chose not to compete for the role because of pressure from Argentina. The country has made it clear that if banks decide to work with the Falklands explorers, they may be frozen out of any future government work, such as bond offerings.
Over the past year, investors have churned nearly £300m into the tiny companies exploring in the region. In every case the firms have no other assets.
If the wells are dry, investors will lose everything. If they find oil, as Rockhopper has done, the rewards are potentially large.
This is a case of a lost girlfriend,” said Federico Mac Dougall, an economist and political analyst at the University of Belgrano in Buenos Aires, referring to the Falklands. “Argentina lost its girlfriend, and now she is going out with somebody else, and together they may very well strike it rich with oil.”
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stikie, your girfriend Kate(remenber) moved to Argentina. Hi stickie...hahaha
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0remenber ? too much paco Marcos
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think we should respond less from the emotion and more about the reality of the facts. If the British rights over the islands are so unquestionable, because Britain was willing to return the islands?, Look at this note (from a British newspaper and a British journalist), and not begin to say that the journalist wants to sell his book, who is schizophrenic, pathological liar or insane ...
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UK was ready to give up Falklands
JAMES McKILLOP
The Herald, 29 November 2001
Britain was within three weeks of signing a
memorandum of understanding that would have
led to the UK ceding sovereignty of the
Falklands to Argentina 14 years before the
nations went to war, secret Foreign Office
papers released yesterday reveal.
A draft memorandum of understanding, drawn
up by the Argentinians and accepted by the
Foreign and Commonwealth Office, recognised
Argentine sovereignty of the islands on a date to
be agreed.
JPL
Britain was within three weeks of signing a
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0memorandum of understanding that would have
led to the UK ceding sovereignty of the
Falklands to Argentina 14 years before the
nations went to war, secret Foreign Office
papers released yesterday reveal.
Why invade then?
The past is for the hostory books. What matters is the present and future. The reality is that the Islanders have made their decision and Argentina does not like it. Yet there is nothing Argentina can do about it.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The fact that the Sea Lion find is commercial as a stand alone resource (even though it is likley to be first of many future finds in the years to come) has given the Islands further optimisim for their economic future. Yet there is nothing Argentina can do about it.
The future of the Islands will be decided by the Islanders and their democratically elected government. Yet there is nothing Argentina can do about it.
If anyone here thinks Argentina can do anything about it then put your money were your mouth is. I have taken my position and will be continuting to add to this as able.
@62 stick
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thing is that JPL has been “economical with the truth”. We all know that there was a period when the FCO was contemplating giving up the Falklands. But it's there in the bit he did quote, “Britain was within three weeks of signing a
memorandum of understanding that would have
led to the UK ceding sovereignty of the
Falklands to Argentina 14 years before the
nations went to war, secret Foreign Office
papers released yesterday reveal.”
14 years right! 1968. Everyone knows that the FCO, and the FO before it, were more interested in appeasing and making other countries happy than in doing what the British people wanted.
Here's are links to the full item that JPL found:
http://www.mail-archive.com/leninist-international@lists.econ.utah.edu/msg01275.html
Note an interesting part that JPL didn't bother with:-
“Lord Chalfont's secret report on his six-day visit
to the Falklands concluded: ”I now have serious
doubts about the possibility of resolving the
problem on the lines of the proposed
memorandum of understanding.
“I believe therefore that we should find some
way to disengage from the present discussions .
. . and that we should examine new ways of
approaching the problem.”
Bit different isn't it?
... Is that the refusal of the islanders to come to some kind of agreement torpedoing any negotiation. And the islanders can not have a veto over British foreign policy.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But what really matters in this press release, is that if the UK does not consider 14 years before 1982 that their “rights” were so unquestioned, and today, you say emphatically that are unquestionable and always have been ...
Why?
JPL
JPL - times change, as do the attitudes and acceptable norms of society. Today what matters is the self-determination of the Islanders and this will remain the accpetable norm until society determines another set of norms.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Live in the present & put some money on RKH - de-risked and going to climb! Try it, you might like it!
JPL
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the late seventies Argies threw Argies alive out of aircrafts WHY?
Quite right, Beef.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JPL, yes,the Islanders can have a veto over British foreign policy...when it comes to decisions about the Falkland Islands.
That was back then. This is now.
Back then, Britain wasn't interested in whether or not it had the better claim to the Islands. Something in common with Argentina then, eh?!
Either way an MOU is as worthless as toilet paper. I work with Korean Universities who have over 200 MOUs with various Universities in the US, Australia, China and the UK. They do this this to make themselves look impressive from the outside. See how many of these so called agreements have ever gone anywhere?
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Either way JPL is incapable of considering current norms. He like many Argentine posters cling to historical artefacts. For some reason they feel this gives them legitimacy when in reality it make them look like bitter and twisted individuals with a massive chip on their shoulder. Ahhh bless!
And, since the Buttocks Queen (hoping that the term will catch on!) has decreed that Argentina's claim is no longer “historical”, there is nothing for the Argentines to cling on to...We all know “reality” isn't something that they do!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JPL
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The MoU is no secret and the fact that the FCO was prepared to transfer sovereignty is no secret. The FCO was prepared to concede the Falklands because it cynically calculated that the islands were worth little to Britain and ceding them to Argentina was worth improved relations with Argentina. At no point did they actually consider the islanders.
This is nothing to do with a lack of confidence in its sovereignty claim, everything to do with International Power Politics and at the expense of the meat in the sandwich; the islanders whose views were ignored.
The Islanders do have the right to veto British foreign policy, when British foreign policy attempts to limit or remove their human rights.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklanders right to self-determination is stated explicitly resolution 1514(XV) which confirmed by resolution 2065(XX) as applying to case of the Falkland Islands. Britain must obey these resolutions in accordance with the Islanders wishes.
The reason is the UK Foreign Office sought to undermine or deny the Islanders their rights under resolution 1514(XV) was to compel them to go along with the UK policy of appeasement of the Argentine military Junta in favour of regional commercial and political gain for the UK in the opinion of the F.O.
The illegal war caused by the Argentina in 1982 has brought the contemporary Foreign Office's shady dealings, including those with the Chago Islanders, into the full glare of the public spotlight. The previous F.O. policy is much disliked, criticised and now strongly opposed.
The war has forever changed the UK's public opinion against the Argentine policy of annexation of British territory in the South Atlantic and caused the Argentine claim to be thoroughly examined by independent historians and legal experts, who have demonstrated many glaring historical and legal flaws in the Argentine irredentist claim.
Now, the UK government and its politicians are being held accountable to the British electorate and public opinion, and must be seen to act implement resolution 1514(XV) and not in favour of the policy of Argentine policy of annexation, which the current fledgling Argentine democracy has continued from its totalitarian past, with continued aggressive indoctrination and propaganda.
The Falklanders now are exercising their democratic rights to self-determination. They have made their choice to remain British clear and public. The U.K. government must respect their choice or the British electorate will remove the government and politicians and replace them with ones that do.
And under Internatonal Law Argentina also has no claim in the present as proximity matters for nothing. Looks like they are not willing to have their arguments taken to peices in the ICJ.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No balls; or brains for that matter!
Domingo, well said, once more! An extremely eloquent rebuttal of what JPL had to say, if you don't mind me saying so.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JPL, since the 1982 invasion, you would be hard-pressed to find any form of British Government who will now concede an inch to Argentina's claim. Domingo is absolutely right in what he says: it will be generations yet in the UK before any of us forget what our forces did to throw you lot out and re-take the Islands. It is no longer just the Islanders who utterly reject the Argentine claim. The British, to a man (forget Simon Jenkins!), woman and child, reject the Argentine claim too.
Hello… It’s me again…..
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”And, since President Cristina Kirchner (hoping that the term will catch on!) has decreed that Argentina's claim is no longer “historical”…………..
I say:
I would (again) recommend you to check your sources of information…..(You could start here, at min 35:25)
http://www.unmultimedia.org/tv/webcast/2010/09/argentina-general-debate-65th-session.html
(74) - and even those nations that verbally support Argentina do nothing to hinder the economic indepence of the Islands. Brail even allow ship en route to call in to port. They were even happen to service the OG on her way down South.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actions speak louder than words and Argentina has no way of making what they say come to fruition. They also have no confidence do anything of note.
The world carries on and the drill bit is turning.
Aye, aye, Think. Good to hear from you again. I thought that you were on holiday somewhere!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I say, if you're going to make me wait 35 minutes before I hear something good from your Buttocks Queen (come on, it's a really good twist on the “botox” thing. Surely?!), I really can't be “arsed”...!! As Basil Brush used to say, “boom boom”! Get it?!
Mr PomInOz.......
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You must really be a “technical invalid” :-)
Under the “ picture” you can find a “bar”, wich you can “ckick on” to navigate to the desired time......
Never mind.....
What the translator says is: “We are not doing that JUST for historical reasons”.......
By the way, a little bombastic your asseveration that: ” The British, to a man (forget Simon Jenkins!), woman and child, reject the Argentine claim too.“
Especially when I happen to know personally 3 ”Real” Falklanders that disagree with you.....
78, Think: absolutely! I am a “technical invalid”! And very nice of you not to call me any worse names...I thank you!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 07:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyhoo, I didn't click on your link. As I said, I couldn't be “arsed”! I had a feeling that what your Buttocks Queen said wasn't quite as reported here and elsewhere. Still, one never knows what inanities she can come up with, so I didn't bother.
By the way, it's “assertion”, not “asseveration”. No criticism intended; just helpful advice on your English (which is generally very good, I have to say). Although I'm very surprised and a little bit sceptical when you say that you know “3 real Falklanders” who disagree with me.
Think. SO what you know three people that agreewith you. What matters is what the majority of the islanders wish. Last time i think the descison to remain a BOT was in the high 90%. Hmmm, looks like you magical three are not goig to swing the result anytime soon.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Enough to drive one to buy more RKH!
When I “don't care” about checking my info..... I don't dare to use it.......
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Normally it hits one in the neck like a Boomerang.
Asseveration: an emphatic assertion...
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/asseveration
Of course, it could be a lie about those 3 Settlers I know..... I understand your scepticism......
@think
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 03 ”Real” Falklanders
3 Settlers
Three blind mice
Goldilocks and the three bears
The three little pigs
Why is it always 3?
Well...you learn something everyday! Never knew that “asseveration” existed as an English word. Another thing to thank you for, Think! Two “thank you”'s in as many posts...I'll bet that you don't get that often, especially from British posters?!!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, Think, were you making stuff up about the 3 “Settlers” that you know, or could you not “care” about checking your sources?!
(83) PomInOz
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I choose to believe that you are somehow honestly interested……..
Yes……… I know those 3 personally…. Different surnames…. Not directly related….. More than 2 generation islanders, the three of them…..
The only thing I wanted you to comprehend is that there is a very small minority in the Islands that see things differently…. Is not a big deal for them…. They are happy to be British….. They like the Islands….. They are not “traitors” or anything similar….They keep their opinions for themselves… but they think differently……
And, if that is true for the Islands, I dare to infer that it must be more so in Great Britain......
....and in Argentina and Latin America. Opinions vary.
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good thing too.
I know 3 modest Argentines Different surnames…. Not directly related…
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing I wanted you to comprehend is that there is a very small minority in the country that see things differently…Is not a big deal for them…. They are happy to be Argies….. They are not “traitors” or anything similar….They keep their opinions for themselves… but they think differently……
Think- quite natural that there are 3- maybe more- peolpe here who think along your lines, but the are a very small %. They are entitled to their view in a democracvy and are almost certianly those with close family connections to Argentina, nothing wrong with that. We are a free society after all. After all there are some your side of the water who think exactly as most of us do!
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THIMC
Oct 04th, 2010 - 06:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0My last entries about “Malvineros” that think differently was in direct response to entry Nr.74, where PomInOz resoundly declares:
” The British, to a man (forget Simon Jenkins!), woman and child, reject the Argentine claim too.“
I don’t know what reasons, background or experience this 12 years Ex-Stanley resident had to write the above but it is very far from being true.
In Britain (as in Argentina) they are many with very diverse opinions about the Malvinas Issue.
In Britain (as in Argentina) they are quite free to express their opinion without any fear. (Apart from the occasional internet “Nutter” calling them “traitors” and other niceties)
That’s not the case in Malvinas……….
Today, in that little and closed community it amounts to “social suicide” to express any opinion, thought or action that could be interpreted as Pro Argentine.
The Kelpers know that perfectly and they act accordingly….
The Belongers seem not to know or not to care….
The Chileans keep dancing to Argentinean “Cumbia Villera” but rename it not to offend the locals…..
@88
Oct 04th, 2010 - 09:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina, a perverse political dynamics is at work whereby
professional politicians fear that to say the “painful” truth about the
Falklands (i.e., that they will never again be Argentine) will make
them lose votes to politicians who continue to engage in the fantasy
that the Islands will be recovered. If politician A admits publicly that
the Falklands will not be recovered, he or she will lose votes to
politician B, who by continuing with the lie will succeed in reaping
political profits from primitive popular emotions
@ 46 axel. so, anyone who disagrees with you is a “moron” you can't have many international friends because you give the impression that Argentina is always right(& they are not).
Oct 04th, 2010 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14 think. l would love to visit Argentina but l think with my attitude l would not be welcome as l am quite passionate about the Falklands not being part of Argentina & would probably get into an arguement with someone about it. not a good idea in the circumstances. guess l'll have to get my LA fix in Chile or Bolivia or anywhere but Argentina.
@38 Typoon, have always loved the name lsolde & wanted to name one of my daughters so. but ran into opposition from my then partner & we named her lmogen instead. very wiccan don't you think?
So its social suicide to do anything seen as “pro-Argentine”.
Oct 04th, 2010 - 11:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0James Peck has exhibited in Argentina, is married to an Argentine and stood for office. Regularly travels to Argentina and before you post the Guardian story it happens to be bollocks.
But I do notice a reference to an Argentine programme I saw some time ago, that made a claim that the islanders danced to South American music pretending not to know where it comes from. Yeah right.
All these assertions that always paint the Falklanders in the most negative of lights. Always without proof or substance, its how racists justify themselves.
And in Argentina you can freely denounce the claim to the Falklands? Yeah right. See #89 - the quote is Carlos Escude.
In Britain there are plenty of citizens that disagree with their own gov. posistion:
Oct 04th, 2010 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A very onesided view of history, no mention of deporting the entire population of the Islands to the Argentine mainland! Is it right that the British Government continue to pay (mostly English) British farmers to work on the lands on the Islands in order to uphold the idea that the Democratic wish of these people is to remain British? they are hardly likely to want to anything else!
Pat Lee, Belfast
Argentina's claim on the Falklands is still a good one Regardless of the islanders' wishes, the issue of sovereignty will at some point have to get back on the agenda
Richard Gott, Guardian
Interesting read about our history with Argentina - I do believe though we should be handing the rights back of the Falkland Islands to Argentina. What right do we have a on these islands that our over 6000 miles from us.
Paul Taylor, Maidstone
Distant colonies are a post-imperial anachronism. Britain will have to negotiate with Argentina because the world, either at the UN or at The Hague, will insist on it. The government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away or atone for the dead of the silliest of wars a quarter century ago.
Simon Jenkins
Those are just a few.
Simon Jenkins!
Oct 04th, 2010 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sigh
you know the drill Marcos
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Future_of_the_Falkland_Islands_and_Its_People#The_Falklands_Will_Never_Be_Argentine
(91) THIMC
Oct 04th, 2010 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0James Peck…….. A perfect example of Social Suicide in Malvinas by showing pro Argentine tendencies.
And …. No, he is NOT one of my three I mentioned before……………
James Peck’s background……………., his father Terry.,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1538660/Terry-Peck.html
Original Article about James being ostracized from Malvinas:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1538660/Terry-Peck.html
Official excuses:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1538660/Terry-Peck.html
James Peck living and teaching art in Buenos Aires 2010
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1538660/Terry-Peck.html
@92
Oct 04th, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Distant colonies are a post-imperial anachronism.” It isn't a colony. “Britain will have to negotiate with Argentina because the world, either at the UN or at The Hague, will insist on it.” The world can get stuffed.
“The government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away or atone for the dead of the silliest of wars a quarter century ago.” A conflict started by Argentina.
What a prick!
Funny, I don't see anything on James Peck's own blog suggesting he was hounded out of the Falklands...
Oct 04th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@92: “A very onesided view of history, no mention of deporting the entire population of the Islands to the Argentine mainland! ”
Oct 04th, 2010 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Which of course, did not happen. What happened was that the Argentine 10 of the 26 strong Argentine garrison mutinied and the Argentine commander Mestivez was murdered 50 days after assuming command on 6th Oct0ber 1832.
After 88 days in total, the British arrived and the Argentine senior commander Pinedo of the ship Sarandi was instructed to leave by the British Captain of HMS Clio, which he did under protest, and 22 out of 26 total number of settlers chose to stay under British rule, whilst 4 chose to return to Buenos Aires, as Pinedo testified in the trial of the Argentine mutineers .
None of the population were deported at all, rather the Argentine garrison was asked to leave which it did on an Argentine ship, the Sarandi.
The story of a large expulsion is a completely false propaganda taught and spread by Argentina propagandists, as the historical records shows.
The pervasive influence of the false propaganda is far-reaching, which is quite probably the intent of the authors of this fiction.
No settlers were expelled. It is time this fact is recognised and the record is put straight.
@think
Oct 04th, 2010 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Terry Peck MBE, a decorated war hero who was the only islander to take up arms against the Argentine army
http://www.falklands.info/history/hist82article19.html
Wonder what else the guardian got wrong?
More about James Peck and the friendly Islanders............
Oct 04th, 2010 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2002/05/29/jack-peck-born-in-buenos-aires
http://en.mercopress.com/2002/05/29/jack-peck-born-in-buenos-aires
Wearing my Argie Paranoia hat,could that be mercopress propaganda
Oct 04th, 2010 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From the desk of Think
Some evident things about Mercopress:
They are hard working…..
They write quite good English….
They do a good job promoting Uruguay as an Investment country....
They dislike Castro….They don’t like Communism…
They dislike Chavez….They don’t like Socialism….
They dislike the Kirchners….They don’t like Peronism…
They dislike Pepe Mujica…They don’t like the Frente Amplio….
They “go out of their way” to present their “dislikes” in the worst possible light…...
They have “quite an interest” in the local Real Estate market….
They have “quite an interest” in the South Atlantic fishing industry….
In short…..
A typical South American “high class”, “high income”, “high education” interest group caring for their own interests that incidentally coincide with “You-Know-Who’s” interests in the North……..
No more no less……..
Did you read Mr Peck's website:
Oct 04th, 2010 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Continues to travel between the mainland and the islands.”
Probably not, seeing as it contradicts the “point” you were trying to make. I see that both mother and father behaved with more dignity than their respective Governments.
Note also:
“The decision that has been deeply controversial in the Islands”
But apparently if we believe the racist premise that Think promotes this should never have happened. Thats the thing about people, they just don't conform to stereotypes. People are actually fundamentally decent, they have to be indoctrinated to hate.
You see most of the Argentines I have met and known are thoroughly decent people, warm and friendly. Whereas if you only ever met the nutters like the crowd at El Malvinense you may have a more jaundiced view.
Think,
Oct 04th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0More and more convinced you are a voice of Arg Foreign Ministry - otherwise why would you come up with the utter garbage claiming vicimization etc of Jaime Peck? The answer you also linked to was not an excuse as you would claim - it was the FACTS of LAW - exactly the same would have happened had the lady been from UK. Even Islanders born here and living many years overseas of their own choice and not working for an FIcompany or FIG cannot come back and claim free access to our medical system! I rather doubt if an Argentine could under similar circumstances in Argentina!
But thats the line though - standard Argentine policy - twist and invert reality until even you start believing it!
A bit like your policy on marine resources in the South Weat Atlantic - Destroy them by overfishing- it does not matter if in so doing Argentina,s own fishing industry is destroyed - the target is to hurt the Falklands economy! And your President dares to ask to be respected as a serious world leader?
Luckily for us one of the most lucrative fishing stocks is in our zone and does not migrate outside it!
“ ... no mention of deporting the entire population of the Islands to the Argentine mainland...”
Oct 04th, 2010 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It appears to be Marcos that has the one sided view of history. Still he's new to these pages, maybe he'll learn something !
HOYTRED. J. A. ROBERT. ISOLDE. ISLANDER.
Oct 04th, 2010 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISOLDE: I dont think that anyone who desagres with me me is a moron, but if sometimes i have rude language with some people, is because i am not going to be friendly with those people who slanders, or insults my country, that's perfectly expectable, i can have many diferences with some countrys, but i respect every nation, i dont ned to insult another country, to say that i desagree with it's policys.
HOYTRED: I dont believe neather in our public statistics, i never take them as a reference, i only take some serious private analists, and they all affirm that our economy had the largest growth of our history since 2003.
Regarding our claim, i hope that any of both parts proposes to take our cause to the icj, in diferent moments, both nations rejected that posibility, i think it was a big mistake.
JASON: I have an asnwer for you in the article of 29th of september, it's about mrs kirchner and multilateralism.
ISLANDER: I respect your opinion, but i dont agree on what you say, i really think that the actual scenario is the result of the intransigence of both sides, my country ignores the islanders, and the islanders have always rejected to discuss about the sovereign dispute, and only argue about self determination, maybe that right is applicable to your people, but some day you will have to recognize that our rights are as legitimate as yours, and both sides will have to find a solution wich respects the rights of both populations, it's not imposible, it's a matter of will.
Both sides make omitions and twist the history when they refer to the sovereign dipsute, both only victimize their selves and dont recognize their mistakes, this is why it's so important to investigate, like i did, i dont believe in the words of any politician, i only believe in facts, i hope i can publish my survey before the end of this year.
You are still failing to understand the fundamental problem that your country has Axel, which is that we have NO doubt about our sovereignty and as a result, will never recognise that you have ANY right, legitimate or otherwise. Therefore there is NOTHING to discuss, now or indeed, ever!
Oct 05th, 2010 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which is why we don't. Even the FCO seem to have finally got the message .. pity that Argentina is too thick!
Axel,
Oct 05th, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thankyou, I too respect your opinions but often differ from them, and we debate which is fine. I agree with Hoytred, but - we need to live alongside you and it would be better(but not essential) if we could find a way for this to happen in harmony as normal neighbours. I will never ever accept your claim - neither do I in reality accept that you are likley to drop yours. Which seems to me to leave the only option where neither side looses face - Independence that would be recognised by Argentina. The question is how could we get there in a way that protects what we want - and at the same time gives some satisfaction to your claims so an Arg government can sell the result to its people as well-despite the fact that we do not accept their validity - we have to accept that they exist and you make a lot of noise about them.
I know there are some here who diasgree with me - but the reality is that however false we know your claim is - it exists - you are simply not going to drop it -and therefore somehow it needs to be dealt with.
Spain and Gibraltar are an example of where they are trying to find a way through the rhetoric and being practical.
I think it will take a change of Govt on your side, and some period of time before even tentative discussions could start. 7 years of K,s have built up such a deep hatred of Argentina here.
Independece is the only result that will allow Argentina to save face after years of pusturing. It would make sense for the Argentine Government to quietly drop the indoctrination of its children in schools and then start to slowly support and promote the idea of an independent Falklands. Then when it happened Argentina could claim to have been one of the driving forces.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is all highly ficticious though, Argentine politicians are too scared of moving away from the official line to consider something that may actually work. I don't doubt that any brave enough to consider it would be immediately denounced by their opponents.
As a result, nothing is likely to change. Any Argentine who thinks that their claim is likely to gain real support in the world should take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes.
Why would Argentina get any more support than anyone else?
Hi everyone! I'm an argie, and I want those people in the islands to be happy, and living quiet and peaceful lives. I'm 19 year old boy, and two of my cousins went to that war, so I guess my feelings should be different? I don't know, but this is how I feel. Falklands don't belong to my country, I've always said it, and I will sustain it. This government of my country is really opressive not because it respects the law, but because it's all about lies, and they're completely nuts. Everything President Kirchner and her husband do is only to brain wash people into their way of thinking. They don't really care about the islands, it is all a failing political game they're playing with Chávez commanding them. They're puppets in the hands of that communist nut, Chávez from Venezuela. I lived in England for a whole year studying, and I thought that people would be hostile to me because I'm an argie, but people were sweet and kind to me, I've made friends, so the experience taught me that things are not as I was told. These are my own thoughts on the Falklands Islands. Thank you for letting me have a space to post my comment.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 01:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nice try.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0(108)
Oct 05th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Every month or so we get one of these “authentic” posts........
:-)
Oct 05th, 2010 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0sigh... what do you mean with “nice try”? Or... your comment wasn't meant for me? ¿Hablás español o qué Marcos Alejandro? It is my comment, my most authentic feelings towards those Falklands Islands. I live in San Isidro - Buenos Aires. I'm argentinian, and I think people fighting over islands are really stupid. But Nations can find anything to start a war over, and I know that some things in life won't ever change, so I don't really care anymore. HAFD.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0And still axel the dummy can't/won't answer questions put to him. What a shame. It would save all that embarrassment if/when he brings out his investigation/survey and it gets destroyed line by line and sentence by sentence.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0If he had any intelligence (unlikely being an argentine) he would have realised that this is one of the best places on which to test postulates.
@xbarilox. Don't be concerned about individuals like Marco and Twinky. They are “spoilers”. I have said before that Twinky is an argie government nark and now it seems Islander1 agrees. It should be clear that the argie government HAS to get in on any exchange of people's views in order to stifle them.
xbarilox may I suggest that you avoid revealing too much personal information. Think and his ilk have a habit of stalking anyone who presents a dissenting voice. Its intended to intimidate people from posting.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0@114
Oct 05th, 2010 - 01:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice heads up JK
Some of Thinks handy work,too much time on His hands methinks
I ”Think” I found the reason for Mr. Fred Bates (Fredbdc) irrational hatred against Argentina…..
It must be Post Traumatic Stress Disorder after being mugged in Buenos Aires…….
I the year 2007 he spent a lot of energy in ”Frommers” trying to convince everybody that Argentina was a terrible place.
He didn't succeed ;-)
www.frommers.com/community/forum.cfm/central-south-america/argentina/complicated-just-live-there
www.frommers.com/community/forum.cfm/central-south-america/argentina/mugged-ba
Rest my case……….
(112) xbarilox
Oct 05th, 2010 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You Say:
”Sigh... what do you mean with “nice try”?....... ¿Hablás español o qué Marcos Alejandro?.....
I Say:
First, I want to say that I disagree 100% with your opinions about Malvinas, the Kirchner’s and Hugo Chavez.........But, of course, you are in your full right to have and express your opinions anyhow you see fit.
What bothers me is that I sincerely doubt that you are a ”Real Argentinean”…..
Just to prove me totally wrong …...... Would you mind translating to Spanish a pair of your own concepts?
Try the following:
”I'm 19 year old boy, and two of my cousins went to that war, so I guess my feelings should be different? I don't know, but this is how I feel. Falklands don't belong to my country, I've always said it, and I will sustain it. This government of my country is really oppressive not because it respects the law, but because it's all about lies, and they're completely nuts.”
Your English is pretty good after a year in GB so I expect your Spanish diction to be excellent….
Cordiales saludos
El Think de Belgrano
Your English is pretty good after a year in GB so I expect your Spanish diction to be excellent
Oct 05th, 2010 - 04:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dont get stalked xbarilox
52 fredbdc (#)
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:18 pm
Get a life. I'm on Facebook too if you want to see my picture. I am not trying to hide but your life must be pretty boring if you are reduced to cyber stalking someone. LOSER.
53 Think (#)
Oct 03rd, 2010 - 08:20 pm
We know... we Know.... Nice hair :-)
Too late....................
Oct 05th, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0xbarilox seems to be a Chilean citizen (according to Twitter)
“Hi everyone! I'm an argie” LOL
Oct 05th, 2010 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice try.
HAFD
Whilst the supposedly Argentine posters are actually from the appropriate Foreign Ministry!
Oct 05th, 2010 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos Alejandro
Oct 05th, 2010 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thinks Sidekick
The apparent stupidity of some comedy sidekicks is often used to make a non-intellectual hero look intelligent.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1538660/Terry-Peck.html
Oct 05th, 2010 - 07:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“He had sharp words for Paras who broke into a house”
No sir Brits don't do that...
He had sharp words for Paras who broke into a house”
Oct 05th, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No sir Brits don't do that
And the argies take a shit in them
Mr. Xbarilox is an angry pinochetist twitter user. In Mercopress he is a fake argentine. Here the proof.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://bettween.com/xbarilox/mauriciocohens/Oct-01-2010/Oct-02-2010/desc
Comment removed by the editor.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#124
Oct 05th, 2010 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0xbarilox writes to mauriciocohens and says “tenemos una presidente que da refugio a criminales” = ”we have a president (female) who gives refuge to criminals”
Argentina has the woman president, not Chile, so how is this proof he's Chilean?
She lives in Argentina dab.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How does that prove s/he?'s Chilean? I live in Peru. I never consider the Peruvian president my president.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently according to Think ”(as in Argentina) they are quite free to express their opinion without any fear.”
Oct 05th, 2010 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Except apparently if you express a dissenting opinion.
HOYTRED. ISLANDER.
Oct 05th, 2010 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOYTRED: I know perfectly that you wont never accept our rights, i know that you think that we dont have any, i have always known it.
But i dont need your recognizement to be sure of our legitimate rights, on the other hand, i know perfectly that we wont never recover the islands, however if decided to investigate, because i am a profesor of geography, i will have to teach this problematic during all the rest of my life, and i want to teach the truth, i am not interested on teaching any sweat version of the argentine history.
Beside, it would be interesting and necesary if some of you investigate about the rights of the u.k., and we can interchange trough this forum all the knowleage that we could get, anyway for being honest, i dont think that any of you do it.
ISLANDER: You are not only honest, you are intelligent too, this is why it has always been interesting to debate with you.
I agree on what you say, we should have a beter relation, and maybe with the passage of time, we can find someday a solution to this dispute, like i said before, it's a matter of will.
Regarding the k, in some aspects i dont agree with their policys about the dispute, but it should not provoke the islanders to hate argentina, people from any country are much more worthy than any simple current government.
The only one aspect that i value from the k, is that for the first time in my 29 years, i can say that my country is going very well, in spite of all the serious problems that we still have, i am sure that it will continue.
Many of the dreams that i have always had for my country are finally happening, but there is still a lot to do for our people.
“The only one aspect that i value from the k, is that for the first time in my 29 years, i can say that my country is going very well”
Oct 05th, 2010 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0WHAT?!. Please, explain it. Because like you say “all the serious problems that we still have”, how this works?.
“ ... on the other hand, i know perfectly that we wont never recover the islands... ”
Oct 05th, 2010 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aint that the truth !
We don't have to recover the islands, Malvinas eventually will be handed over Argentina.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 03:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Distant colonies are a post-imperial anachronism. Britain will have to negotiate with Argentina because the world, either at the UN or at The Hague, will insist on it. The government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away or atone for the dead of the silliest of wars a quarter century ago”
Simon Jenkins
cher marcos, don't take too much notice of simon jenkins. he is a red-ragger that writes for a communist newspaper, that not a lot of people read anyway.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0glad to see a few Argentineans are agreeing at last that the Falklands are not theirs.........we're making progress here.
thats an interesting concept re Think being an Argentinean govt agent. l suppose it makes sense for anyone to monitor “hostile” communications. hostile to them of course.
but l digresse(?) no matter, The Falklands do not belong to Argentina.
” ... We don't have to recover the islands, Malvinas eventually will be handed over Argentina ...
Oct 06th, 2010 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think ... you have a follower :-) Gotta love that optimism, but a man born to be disapointed in life ! Hope he buys Simon's book ..... not that the writer has a commercial interest at all! Wouldn't want to suggest that :-)
Think - people are thinking about you ... isn't that wonderful?
(135) Hoyt
Oct 06th, 2010 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes……………It’s interesting that a nobody like me (Think) with a tiny computer and a young Brazilian guy still living with his parents (Forgetit87) get people to”think” so much…..
It must be due to the intrinsic powers of truth and reason…………..
You've got a tiny computer AND a young Brazilian guy ..... wow, Think, you're more modern than I thought :-)
Oct 06th, 2010 - 05:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0And so it goes on, and the wheel turns :-)
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2010/gaspd450.doc.htm
The intrinsic powers of truth, reason…………..and humor:-)
Oct 06th, 2010 - 06:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can believe what you like Axel but it doesn't change the facts.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tiny computer , tiny brain and a young Brasilian bloke..... wow...
Oct 06th, 2010 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0HOYTRED. ISOLDE. J. .A ROBERT.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISOLDE: I have an asnwer for you in my comment number 104.
HOYTRED: I t was obviuos that you were not going to answer what i suggested you, about investigating about the rights of the u.k. in the malvinas-falklands, and after we could interchange all the knowleadge that we could get.
Now you are going to argue surelly that you dont need to investigate because you are sure about the rights of your country in the islands, however there are planty of questions that you ignore, my questions is, ¿who is really brainwashed in this situation?, ¿who is the one who believes only on hes propaganda, and does not survey to know if what hes authoritys say is true or not?.
If i would believe only in our propaganda, i woulden't have made any investigation, ¿dont you think?, your posture and mine, shows who is the one who is brainwashed.
JASON: I dont believe what i like, i only believe in the results of my investigations, even in that way i can be wrong, but i prefer to take a valid all the knowleadge that i could get from diferent experts in international right, because they know much more than you and i, anyway i know perfectly that whatever i believe , it wont change the facts in absolut, but i already said in many oportunitys why the malvinas-falkands dispute is so important for me.
On the other hand, the british experts who i included for my survey are:
Deas, Jenings, Mc gibbon, Verikyos, Lauterpacht, Ian Brownley, Venturini, Fawcett, and Akehurst, i only have their surnames, some f them were experts in international rights, and others were profesors in diferent universitys.
The books that i used are, las malvinas y el derecho inernacional, y segunda cronologia anotada de la cuestion malvinas, both by Ferrer Vieyra, (one of the most prestigious experts in international right from the country), in y next comment i will tell you more about my bibliography.
Beside i have an answer for you in the article of 29th of sept.
Axel - no idea what you are talking about! I made my own 'survey' many months ago and, as you know full well, I belive that this matter was resolved in 1833. Lord Palmerston's letter to Moreno pretty well covers all the points.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Britain had found the islands and laid cliam in both 1690 and 1765.
2. Spain's attempt to assert sovereignty over the Falkland islands was rebuffed and Spain was forced to back down.
3. When the British garrison left for economic reasons, they left behind the marks and signs suficient at that time in international law to maintain the British claim (when Spain left it also did the same!).
4. Sovereignty was never relinquished and all of Argentina's presumptive actions were the cause of official complaint. Vernett's settlers operated with British permission.
5. When an illegal Argentine garrison landed in 1832, the response was for Britain to react accordingly and, as a result, that garrison was required to leave in January 1833.
End of story as far as I can see!
And still axel won't/can't answer. What a dingbat!
Oct 06th, 2010 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To sump up, Malvinas will be handed over to Argentina no matter what pirates and queen's bootlickers say!
Oct 06th, 2010 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HOYTRED:
Oct 06th, 2010 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't know that you have made a survey a couple of monthes ago.
Anyway, of you call that, a survey, let me tell you that have planty of omitions and wrong assertions.
Regarding the discovering, it's not a relevant fact to argue that one country has sovereign rights on another territory.
The only one fact that gives sovereign rights to a country, is the permanent ocupation, the u.k. didnt ocupy permanently the islands untill 1833, it's garrison lasted just 8 years.
The plaq that the u.k. left in port egmont, is absolutly irrelevant, what you say about that fact, is false.
On the other hand, if the u.k.never relinquished to it's sovereign rights, ¿why didnt it force spain to leave the islands, and left it to ocupy them during 44 years?, maybe the u.k. had legitimate rights, but the rights of spain were also legal, the provincias unidas, as sucessor of the spanish kingdom had legitmate rights to ocupy the islands, the u.k. had no rights to force our authoritys to leave the islands, and deprive us of our rights.
Beside, if the rights of the u.k. were legal, and ours false, then why when lord palmerston answered moreno's letter in august of 1849, he recognized that the sovereign dispute was still pendent, ¿dont you think he should have recognized the soposed rights of the u.k., and rejects ours, for considering that we didnt have any?.
There are a lot of questions that we must take into account, but i have no space to explain them year, when i can publish my survey, you will know that you lack of many important arguments.
It's not the end of any story, like it or not.
Axel.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lord Palmerston asked Moreno if he wished to renegotiate the Convention of Settlement, it was quietly ratified subsequently by the Argentine congress without further reservation. So claiming that the letter somehow reserves the Argentine position is false - you went ahead and agreed with the terms.
Lord Palmerston also rejected Moreno's claims as all previous protests were. The mere act of protesting and replying does not give the claim any legitimacy as you infer. Nor does it recognise that sovereignty remains disputed - you ratified the convention after all.
And again there is no mechanism in International Law that would recognise Spanish claims passing to Argentina. Utis Possidetis Juris is a mechanism to resolve boundary disputes between former Spanish colonies, it is not a means by which rights are transferred as you claim. You grabbed the land you could, nothing more, nothing less at independence.
Spain and the UK had recognised each others rights to be in the Falklands, the 1771 treaty recognised that by mutual agreement. Spain never relinquished its claim to the Falklands till the late 1850s, whereupon it recognised both Argentine independence and the British sovereignty over the Falklands.
But once again I find myself explaining the same principles in International Law to you. Had you conducted an objective “survey” you would have found this to be correct long ago.
When you publish your “survey” I rather expect to pick it apart.
@147. Very good axel. How do you translate “many months” into “a couple of months”? How do you know what's in Hoytred's survey if you haven't read it? Actually, the one of the best claims to sovereignty over a territory is first claim. If the British plaque is irrelevant, so is the Spanish plaque. And gives the lie to your claim that you were “inheriting” Spanish territory.
Oct 06th, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And still you refuse to answer my questions.
“provincias unidas, as sucessor of the spanish kingdom had legitmate rights to ocupy the islands”
Oct 06th, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, Buenos Aires, the UP and Argentina were not successors to the Kingdom of Spain. They did not inherit anything or any rights from Spain. When will you get that into your head?
“The only one fact that gives sovereign rights to a country, is the permanent ocupation, the u.k. didnt ocupy permanently the islands untill 1833”
The UK has been in continuous occupation since 1833. Nearly 180 years. I think it's fairly obvious that today, the Falklands are British. The best Buenos Aires could manage was about 3 months between 1832 and 1833. Anyway, since the UN age began, self determination overtook all of that and is the only factor of any importance.
My 'survey' merely consited of a week or so's research into the subject ... nothing as grand as Axel would make out. I'm long passed dissertations/thesis. Two were enough!
Oct 06th, 2010 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Axel, you are wrong!
Discovery is the most used basis of sovereignty.
Nowhere does it state that sovereignty has to be maintained by a permanent garrison.
The plaque is not irrelevant - if it was, why did Spain leave a similar plaque ?
We had sovereignty, we were on top ... so Spain did not have to leave!
Justin had answered the rest.
If these are the foundations for your thesis, I fear it will be torn to shreds when (if) you do publish it!
Be careful Axel, not to confuse Uti Possidetis Juris with Utis Possidetis !
Oct 07th, 2010 - 04:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain may be able to claim the latter as a result of 1982. No?
round and round we go, “start at the start & when you come to the end,stop”-(red queen in alice in wonderland).-l believe all evidence & research offered to the Argentineans over these last few months is like water off a duck's back. they just haven't taken it in, they don't want to take it in, so why bother argueing or explaining to them anymore. pull down the shutters, load up the blunderbuss,man the loopholes & get ready to defend our homes again........they say they won't try the military option again but l hae me doots, l think that they will. don't be overconfidant, lads just be ready(what a pity it has come to this)!!!!!!!
Oct 07th, 2010 - 10:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting! I've just been doing a little 'survey' on the UN's Fouth Committee ....... otherwise known as the 'black hole' where C-24's sugestions about the Falkland Islands disappear.
Oct 07th, 2010 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lots of good stuff about 'self determination' too. 2 years ago the C-24 tried to water down the UN's acknowledged 'right' to self determination by adding a clause involving 'territorial integrity' and 'soverignty disputes'.
Got chucked out, but questions were being asked about the way the C-24 reached its conclusions ...... remember what I said about it being 'discredited' Think?
Easy quiz - guess which countries were in favour of the inclusion of 'territorial integrity' into the fundamental right to self determination?
Axel - if you don't know about the 4th Committee, you're going to get slaughtered!
Try this as merely one example - http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2008/gaspd406.doc.htm
Just as an aside, I see that Gibralter has, once again, challenged Spain to go to the ICJ .... apparently Spain keeps refusing. Now I know where the kids get it from !
:-)
JUSTIN. HOYTRED. J. A. ROBERT. TYPHON.
Oct 07th, 2010 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Some of you dont have any idea about what you are saying, you dont need to believe what i say, all your arguments were perfectly refuted by all those british experts who i named i my comment number 143, i am sure that you can find planty of bibliographys about their knowleadge in the librarys or in the archives from the u.k..
Investigate please what they affirm about the application of self determination to our cause, adcquisitive prescription, stoppel, historic facts wich happened in the islands since the discovering untill 1982, etc etc.
I base my arguments, on the knowleadge of those experts, and in the words of the experts from my country, like us or not, those people knows much more than you and i.
A lamb to the slaughter then ... !
Oct 07th, 2010 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like I said before Axel. You have failed to demonstrate how BsAs/UP/Arg inherited anything from Spain.
Oct 07th, 2010 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@155
Oct 07th, 2010 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I base my arguments, on the knowleadge of those experts, and in the words of the experts from my country, like us or not, those people knows much more than you and i.”
You, axel, not I.
By the way, since you like referring people back to other comments and other threads, perhaps you could oblige us all by turning your attention to comment no.(35). Perhaps you could respond to some of the points I raised. They are all valid and you haven't answered one of them. Not even with the aid of your “experts”. I'm particularly curious about it, so please start with “Resolution” A/64/106 and go on to the others afterwards.
I'm actually looking forward to Axel's survey, I could do with a laugh.
Oct 07th, 2010 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TYPHON. J. A. ROBERT. HOYTRED. ZETHE.
Oct 07th, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON: i already expained to you about our inherance, your problem is that you reject it, there is nothing else i can do with it.
When you investigate what those experts say regarding the fact that the u.p. were the sucessors of the spanish kingdon, maybe in that moment you can change your wrong ideas.
Beside yo still didnt answer my comment from the article of september 29th, wich is regarding mrs kirchern and multilateralism.
HOYTRED: Be carefull with your lamb, you can loss it for chrismass.
TYPHON: I already explained to you that resolution, i am not going to repeat it, beside, i explained too my arguments in others oportunitys, in fact yesterday, i explained them AGAIN to hoytred, find them in this page.
On the othe hand, i already told you 3 or 4 times that when i publish my survey you will get your conclutions, i can't explained everything i investigated here, because we have no so much space, there are many aspects that we must take into account.
Anyway you dont need to wait to read my survey, you can make your own investigation, take as a reference what all those british experts who i named in my comment number 143, say regarding all the aspects wich concern our cause.
ZETHE: Read my comments number 143, and 155.
I always read your stuff axel, it makes me giggle.
Oct 07th, 2010 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tell me Axel, those sources you named. Did you check them personally or are you quoting them as a tertiary source?
Oct 07th, 2010 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We tend to have turkey at Christmas Axel ... but if you want to be a turkey, that's ok with me :-)
Oct 07th, 2010 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It sound to me as though your mind was made up before you started your research and that you are pursuing just one hypothesis and seeking evidence/opinion to support that one view. Typically it's the view that may get you credit within the Argentine system but which does not challenge the accepted norms.
That isn't research Axel ... that's just toadying up to your superiors!
Justin's point is a good one too ... working out of books or interviewing your sources?
The bottom line of course comes down to one question, - ” If Argentina has a good case historically and legally, then why doesn't Argentina take its case to the ICJ?
Perhaps your Government's experts know more than your chosen ones ??
No, Axel, you have never “already explained about our inheritance”. You have never given the basis for this assertion. We are all still waiting to know under what principle BsAs/UP/Arg inherited anything from Spain.
Oct 08th, 2010 - 07:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is actually more to my comment, several legal opinions are contingent upon the presumption of certain Argentine myths, the expulsion myth for example. When those are removed the basis of the legal opinion collapses.
Oct 08th, 2010 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would probably wager I can name the source of Axel's “British” comments.
162 Justin: “Tell me Axel, those sources you named. Did you check them personally or are you quoting them as a tertiary source?”
Oct 08th, 2010 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I tried finding information on the people Axel mentions. The only one I could actually find died in January this year - Ian Brownlie. Unless Axel had a direct talks with him before his death then would have to assume he was a tertiary source.
As Axel only gives the surnames of the other sources no way to find any information on them or to find any of their writings.
Axel - will you be providing their full names against source list in your survey?
Aren't the best experts on international law the judges of the ICJ? Didn't they make their position clear in regards self determination not so long ago?
I will admit my understanding of international law is limited to say the least but isn't it the case within law that a judgement by a court can set precedent which is then applied to other cases of the type?
Isn't this what happened when the ICJ made it's judgement regards Kosovo?
Axel - since the judgement was made in the ICJ regards Kosovo, have you spoken again to your experts in international rights? Have you asked the experts you refer to how the ICJ judgement affects their thinking and your arguements?
From what I can see the judgement has made clear that it is not upto the UK or to Argentina to decide the Islands future. It is down to the Islanders themselves and they have surely made their wishes more than clear on this subject.
I've now tracked back for 5 years of UN 4th Committee press releases and it's quite funny. The 4th Committee oversee the work of the C-24 and every year the same scenario repeats itself.
Oct 08th, 2010 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The main topics are the Western Sahara, Guam and Gibraltar and every year the work of the C-24 is largely ignored. Argentina makes it's spurious claims every opportunity it gets and whenever a proposal may affect their view of the island's status, and then the UK representative repeats almost exactly the same phrase in response ...... and that's it for another year. No proposals about the Falkland Islands go forward to the General Assembly and everyone goes home till the following year!
What was that movie when events kept repeating themselves over and over again? It's just like that :-)
This'll go on forever!!!
Groundhog Day
Oct 08th, 2010 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0#167 - I take it all back. Change of Government I suppose, but this year the UK gave a longer reply to the usual cr*p from the South American representatives at the 4th Committee - “ The representative of the United Kingdom, in response to statements by Paraguay, Uruguay, Nicaragua and Bolivia on the Falkland Islands, said that his country had no doubt about its sovereignty over them, and said there could be no sovereignty of the Falkland Islands unless the islanders so wished.
Oct 09th, 2010 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0He said that the United Kingdom’s relationship with all of its overseas territories was a modern one based on partnership. The democratically elected representatives of the Falklands had expressed their views in this year’s debate in the “Committee of 24”. They had asked the Committee to recognize that they, like anyone else, were entitled to exercise the right of self-determination. They had reiterated the historical facts: that the Falklands had no indigenous population; and that no civilian population had been removed prior to their people settling on the islands more than eight generations ago. They had confirmed that they were and had been the only people settling on the islands and that they did not wish for any change in the status of the islands.
On the issue of development of the hydrocarbon industry, he noted that article 1.2 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights supported that right. It stated that all people may dispose of their natural resources and wealth, and in no case, may people be deprived of their own means of subsistence ......”
Getting a few facts in it would seem .... maybe this means a more aggressive approach to the spurious claims of Argentina ??
JUSTIN. LEGION NI. HOYTRED.
Oct 09th, 2010 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I only know about the surnames of all those british experts, in the bibliographys that i could search, there were no their names, anyway regarding ian brownley, he wrote a book called. principles of international right.
I didn't talk to any of those experts, i only found their assertions in the bibliographys.
Regarding the mith of the expultion, i already explained four times that i know that all our settlement was not expeled, only our authoritys were expeled, and those people who wanted to go with our authoritys, i included these arguments in my survey.
About taking the case to the icj, i agree absolutly on giving that step, but let me remind that in diferent moments both countrys rejected the international arbitration, so, dont blame only my country for this issue.
Regarding the kosovo case, it's very diferent than our case, kosovo joint the territory of servia, and for diferent reasons it wanted to separate.
The malvinas-falklands since 1833 dont join our provinces unfortunatelly, we claim for them, but they are occupyed by another country.
On the other hand, i said in many oportunitys that probably self determination is applicable to the islanders, this is why we must find a solution wich respects the rights of both countrys.
I will do all can to try to publish my investigation on line before the end of this year, but i keep on investigating, anyway i there is no so much to add, i am sure that i will finish it in a few weeks, i decided to include more legal aspects wich belong to international right.
I have all the answers to the questions that you make to me all the time, but i only can answer some of them, because as you can see we have no so much space to type here.
Axel, you've ignored the point, at least someone of those legal opinions you've just quoted are contingent upon the expulsion myth. Without it they're worthless - you've acknowledged it as a myth.
Oct 09th, 2010 - 03:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're reliant on tertiary sources, reporting on opinions, to objectively evaluate you have to go back to the primary source and consider whether the assumptions it is based on remain valid.
“icj, i agree absolutly on giving that step”
Oct 09th, 2010 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then you must be seriously deluded if you think a court of law is going to allow you to occupy the islands against the peoples will.
Insane, even.
“we must find a solution wich respects the rights of both countrys.”
Oct 09th, 2010 - 10:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why? Simply because you have a claim, untested in the only court which could make a definitive ruling
I think he's making the usual error in believing the rights of countries supercede those of people; it is only people that have the rights that matter, and the only people here with rights to decide on the future of the Falkland Islands are the Falkland Islanders.
Oct 10th, 2010 - 10:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no argument requiring a solution here, Argentina has no valid claim and no rights, if it had, it would take the matter to the ICJ, but we know they won't do that because the Argentine Government would have to re-write their Constitution and explain to every Argentine Citizen that they have been systematically lying and indoctrinating them with this nonsense since the 1930's.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!