MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands’ Defence Row
The controversy over Britain’s ability to defend the Falkland Islands against Argentine attack has continued in the United Kingdom with the former Defence Secretary at the time of the 1982 invasion, Sir John Nott, joining in. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesUK Government should care more about the millions suffering their economy disaster instead of spending so much money to defend a few hundred fat rich people against a non-existen threat and in a land that is not theirs.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/universityeducation/8123194/Student-tuition-fee-protest-turns-violent-as-Tory-headquarters-evacuated.html
“The controversy over Britain’s ability to defend the Falkland Islands against Argentine attack ” Are all you idiots? Argentine attack?????????????????? If this is not warmongering then I don't know what warmongering is. Shame on you Brits, shame on you, and I thought the Falklanders were peaceful islanders. I thought, like an idiot, that a dialogue was an actual possibility for the Brits too, but I see that you are hopless people. If there is something I recognize to my country's government is the honest wish to have an open and honest dialogue with the British government about the islands.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The degree of misunderstanding shown in the whole Malvinas issue is alarming. I wonder how much of this warmongering is caused by Kelpers themselves.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Luckily, I will get prompt answers by those involved in short time.
Why does Argentina have a Navy,Army and Airforce?
Nov 11th, 2010 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who is going to attack you?
Shame on who Xbox? Were not the ones who have been screaming bloody blue murder about missile tests and deliberately facilitating low level military and economic harassment of the islanders for the past 3 years?
Nov 11th, 2010 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your a moron Yaghan and Xbox if you think the islanders are the warmongering ones?
Their statements are a reflection of the very real distrust they have for Argentina but who can blame them? Any country which demands negotiations on sovereignty of your country but doesn't recognize you as a people able to negotiate, is not a country worth speaking to.
The current political climate is a mess of Argentina's own making acting in a belligerent aggressive fashion, making up international decrees that it claims the UK violates and denying that the Islanders any say in the future of their country.
Military conflict is not a probability, but it is a distinct possibility at this point in time, and almost entirely by gross overreaction of the Kirchner regimes starting with the scraping of the fisheries and oil agreements in 2003.
Oh, the RN lobby is struggling to fight cuts. No new. I ve seen them before the 82.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And for some uninformed observers, Argentina disarmed herself through the idea of building trust, as Escudé put it in the nineties (he had a strong influence over Di Tella and Menem).
It worked with Chile, it worked with Brazil.
It didn´t worked and it isn´t working with UK.
Last years we have seen UK being part of two overt invasions to sovereign countries, and still occupying one of them. That´s why many times we have to reference to UK´s behaviour in Iraq and Afganistan, two destroyed countries and two military defeats for UK.
From Cameron in charge the Brits are talking of Argentina attacking? Not our will, MI6 can say better than me.
So, why the fuss?
Just lobbying or something worse?
Thel last 28 years of progressive disarmament and demilitarization has been the most genial political move of our 200 years of history as an Independent nation
Nov 11th, 2010 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Warmongering Brits ... Please do us a favor... :
Cry Wolf.... Cry Wolf..... Cry Wolf
:-)))
Sniff sniff, cat? dog? no argie bull sh*t
Nov 11th, 2010 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.upi.com/Business_News/Security-Industry/2010/09/01/Argentina-plans-50-percent-boost-in-defense-spending/UPI-22001283376479/
Argentina is, of course, totally untrustworthy. If it was as peaceful and democratic as it would like the world to believe, it would accept and respect the democratic wishes of the Falkland Islanders. It would remove the offensive clause in its constitution claiming sovereignty over the Islands and its intention to rule the territory. It would not be imposing economic sanctions, known as denial of access to its infrastructure, and demanding that other South American countries do the same.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it will do none of these things because it is a territory full of slimy, greedy dagos with a history of stealing land from people not in a position to resist.
Must have been really upsetting when Britain came to the aid of the Islanders and decisively kicked some greasy ass.
Who knows what might happen if Argentina oversteps the mark again? At the end of the day, possession is 9 parts of the law and Britain has had possession of the Islands for 177 years. The current population has the best right to the territory, especially as they and their forbears have been there for all that time.
Would it be too much to look for Argentina and its people to grow up? Probably. The Islands belong to the Islanders. There is nothing that Argentina can do that will alter the determination of the British people that the Falklands will remain free of Argentine rule. There is no excuse for complaining about (non-existent) colonialism whilst proposing to replace it with actual colonialism.
Thanks guys for helping Argentina!
Nov 11th, 2010 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please continue Crying Wolf!... Woooooolf!!!
Please write a lot of open letters too (Ramsay's style :-)
“then I don't know what warmongering is”
Nov 11th, 2010 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly, you don't.
xbarilox, yaghan, Think:
Do you people not understand what the word warmonger means?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
Read it. Debating the ability to defend territory from attack is not “someone who is eager to encourage a people or nation to go to war.”
“two military defeats for UK.”
Defeat is the act of forced retreat. We found out our reasons were wrong to go iraq, so we left. That is not defeat.
I don't understand how we've lost the afghan war when we are still there(and will be for five more years), how does that even make sence?
@ Zethee #11
Nov 11th, 2010 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are warmongers. My country wants to talk about the islands, the UK does not. My country wants to have a talk about the islands with the British government, the UK is only talking about weapons and an Argentine attack! What is that? It's like Bush talking of weapons of mass destruction to justify an invasion to Iraq and gainingg people's support. I support my troops! Remember? That is warmongering, to encourage you people to go to war. You're talking about an Argentine attack, when all my country wants to do is have a dialogue.
“We found out our reasons were wrong to go iraq, so we left. That is not defeat.” Nice, Zethee! It is so easy for you to say, “we found out our reasons were wrong”. Your reasons were so wrong that there're thousands of people being killed.
Poor little bullied Argentina,only wanting peace
Nov 11th, 2010 - 08:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/05/29/argentina-announces-malvinas-sovereignty-presence-with-patrol-vessels
@ stick up # 13
Nov 11th, 2010 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The patrol vessels are under construction in a joint project with Chile and the first one should be ready for operations early next year said Ms Garré during a brief interview with journalists from the official news agency Noticias Argentinas.”
Can't you read, stick? You obviously are a mentally incompetent puppet.
Zethee, the topic here is not about defeats, but you can search about Basra at BBC and YOUR diplomats are talking about the need to go out from the Afghan hell. But you can see it like you prefer. Sure that french thought at DienBienPhu that were winning. Not an essential point. My only worry is what you are going to do with your forces the day after.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We’re not talking or planning to send troops to the zone but simply to show the presence of Argentina and our willingness to exercise sovereignty over our maritime areas”, added Ms Garré.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sounds like fighting talk,if Britain made that statement the Argies would go all girly
“My country wants to talk about the islands, the UK does not. My country wants to have a talk about the islands with the British government, the UK is only talking about weapons and an Argentine attack”
Nov 11th, 2010 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The first two have nothing to do with warmongering. Secondly. They are debating the ability to DEFEND in the event of another INVASION.
Warmongering is not the same thing, READ THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warmonger
“My only worry is what you are going to do with your forces the day after.”
They'll come home for a much needed rest. You only need worry if your troops land on the islands again. In this situation it has been your nation who has been the aggressor.
We could have started to attack your mainland in 82 if we wished, but we didn't.
“the Afghan hell”
I wont disagree with that, All wars are hell.
@ Zethee #17
Nov 11th, 2010 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are Elisa Carrió, la inimputable.
18 bx
Nov 11th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0don´t touch my idol!
:-)
17 Zethee
Remember to discuss about troops the day after. Coming soon, as some hi-diplomats wish.
btw: which is the difference between you and your pal without last “e”?
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comments do not reflect MercoPress’ opinions. They are the personal view of our users. We wish to keep this as open and unregulated as possible. However, rude or foul language, discriminative comments (based on ethnicity, religion, gender, nationality, sexual orientation or the sort), spamming or any other offensive or inappropriate behaviour will not be tolerated. Please report any inadequate posts to the editor. Comments must be in English. Thank you.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0TITAN, Lamentablemente no lo permiten, saludos.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee . This is an Uruguayan newspaper, Titan should be alowed to comment in his native language, don't you think? . Ok Brits is time to learn spanish...and return Malvinas to Argentina.
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ TITAN Saludos!
Nov 11th, 2010 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Pheel
LOL She's Elisa! Thank God there's only one, two would be like: OMG! haha
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Zethee . This is an Uruguayan newspaper, Titan should be alowed to comment in his native language, don't you think? . Ok Brits is time to learn spanish...and return Malvinas to Argentina.”
Nov 11th, 2010 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Should would could.
I only quoted the rules of the website.
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 11th, 2010 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just report subscribers for using Spanish, the Editor is obligated to remove anything that isn't posted in English.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wouldn't bother, not like it bothers me at all.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0xbarilox nothing but lies,
Nov 12th, 2010 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0all you lot do is throw shit to the wind trying to wind us brits up,
but it does not work, the truth is you cannot stand to lose.
The decent argentinians have no interest in this rubbish, they are quiet willing to talk, the British want to talk, And the falklanders want to talk,
but all you Argentine bloggers do is pass silly comments.
Go home and dream , As britain will always be great
And Argentina wanting ?
Rural colonials don´t want to be at front page; bad business for them. Dispute is a bad business.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5849&source=3
Warmongering is no good for Juanita Brook, for kelpers, for development. As Juanita say, warmongering is not at argentina side.
Argentina side is peace, peacefull means, economy & money, no lifes in peril; only business.
“Argentina side is peace ...”
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Short memory you have Billious. We however have a rather longer one. Argentina tried aggression in 1833 and 1982 and the British are perfectly entitled to quote those occassions when they consider their defence needs. It is not 'warmongering' it is part of a reasonable debate based on prior knowledge. Argentina cannot be trusted and our defence spending on the Falkland Islands reflects that!
Please Warmongers of Great Britain
Nov 12th, 2010 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Don’t listen to Juanita Brook
She is just a Woman…………………………. An intelligent Island Woman saying the truth :-) :
“We are more apprehensive about the UK press than we ever would be about Argentines as Islanders know what they are capable of and expect any reaction to UK press reports to reflect negatively on them.”
Or…..:
“Shame on you:
Elements of the UK press are focusing on a war that won*t exist, allowing economic, political and diplomatic pressure from Argentina to wreak havoc on Falklands businesses and relations with other nations in the area to go unreported and ignored. “
www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5849&source=3
I ( Think) I luuuuuv the British press…………………….
It is perfectly natural for Britian to consider the defence of the Falklands. They have a beligerent neighbour with a history of planning and sometimes carrying out suprise attacks on friendly nations.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0They have less than 2,000 troops stationed on the islands compared with their neighbours 70,000. Let Argentina reduce its forces to match the Falkland Islands and then we can both have mutual confidence that we wont be subject to attack.
It is not only Argentina that poses a threat to the Falklands, lets remember that Venezuelas Presidente has also announced within the last year, after consulting with the Argentine Presidente, that they intend to take part in an Argentine invasion of the Islands.
The Argentine govt. actions do constitute war mongering. There statements on the Falkland Islands resemble very closely Saddams comments on Kuwait prior to the Gulf war and in many other cases (e.g. Balkans War) where beligerent nations use false claims to justify invasions, genocide & mass murder. Let us not forget that the Argentine govts supporters have been seen with placards calling for the Islands to be ethnically cleansed and the Argentine police took no action against these criminals because they are supportive of the Argentine govt position.
Finally will posters stop referring to the Islands as Malvinas. This is a highly offensive facist propoganda term. Repeated use by the current “democratic” regime only underlines the similarity in outlook with their facist dictator predecessors.
(36) Rico
Nov 12th, 2010 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0MALVINAS.... MALVINAS... MALVINAS!
Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow
(Ayer, hoy y siempre)
And that is why the UK is perfectly justified in preparing its defence of the Falkland Islands.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0And that is exactly what we want you to do…
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spend a l.000.000.000ts of money on ”ofense”…
Cry Wolf…. Cry Wolf…. Cry Wolf…
Until the dormant majority of British taxpayers awakes…
The ”Malvinas Issue” is fast becoming a ”Media Commodity” in Britain…
Let’s keep it that way….
A petite ”unprovoked” attack from one of your “BIG, MEAN and STRONG” battleships against one of our “small, flimsy and frail” fishery inspection fiberglass and plastic boats would be ideal.
Good video stuff for the UN and Youtube :-)
Battleships thunk?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0How very 1940s!
Oh! then again, wasnt there one sunk in 1982?
Not one of ours, wonder who was old fashioned enough, as in behind the times, to have one of them.
Until the dormant majority of British taxpayers awakes…
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0We are wide awake,money well spent on defending the Falklands Oil cow
http://www.taxpayersalliance.com/
(40)
Nov 12th, 2010 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Welll....
I thought about using “Dreadnought” but I was afraid that it was to old a “bait word” to catch any turnips....
Battleship did just fine :-)
May I remind the Argentine posters whose government recently said that the current round of annual testing of Rapier Anti Air systems was a “Militarization of the South Atlantic” and would lead to all South Atlantic Nation states scrambling to get their hands on cold war era Anti Air systems.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now whose reduced the troop numbers in the islands from 6,000 in 1982 to a mere 1,250 today and withdrawn the South Georgia Garrison?
A media commodity you say? I've probably seen less than 20 stories in the last couple of months relating directly to the Falklands from the UK, and probably ooh? 2-3 several second segments earlier this year on the TV relating to the drilling on BBC and Channel 4, hardly a media commodity.
I gather and from my own experiences that the Malvinas issue is a daily almost religious ritual that is carted out in the Argentine media, especially
closer to election time.
Frail Fibre glass Funk? You wouldn't exactly be using something small flimsy and frail in the South Atlantic would you?
They're made of steel and they're going to be Corvettes, quite good for intimidating fishing vessels, and just generally harassing shipping in the Falklands, that might look good on the UN.
here is a sneak peek at what they are going to look like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/River_class_patrol_vessel
“ ... Until the dormant majority of British taxpayers awakes...”
Nov 12th, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0But that's not happening, is it Think?
The newspapers are using the Falkland Islands as a rallying cry over defence cuts because they know that the public is sensitive on this issue. Not concerned with the expense, but sensitive to the fact that the islands are British and that perfidious Argentina has a history of trying to claim what is not hers.
If anything, the constant reminders that 1) the islands are British and 2) that they are threatened, works against Argentina's long term strategy.
Long may it last :-)
To save face to their people, all Argentina has to do, is keep on crying foul.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0And then throw out the odd insult, and the people are satisfied
Because in reality that’s all Argentina can do , bla bla bla
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Warmongering? What a load of rubbish. How many times have Argentine poster here on Mercopress have hailed when an Argentine patrol vessels have approached innocent fishing vessels? How many times have the Islander posters on here have read threats of nuclear weopens and the strength of the Argentine military forces? The Argentine posters also hail the illegal economic blockade of the Falklands? The Argentine posters also seem to fail to remember the fact that their country, Argentina, invaded the Falkland Islands, a peaceful country 28 years ago. That is not even a lifetime away. We still have evidence of the war every where in the Falklands. We still have to live with the effects of what Argentina subdigated on the Falklands people. The crap Think, Marcos, Xbox and the rest of the Argentines spout is embarrassing. You claim Britain is warmongering? Laughable. The only concern is the defence of the Falkland Islands, the mistrust of Argentina, is Argentina's fault for invading the Falklands. Lets not forget that Argentina is known to be the warmongerers in the South Atlantic with their aggressive acts, decrees, statements etc, not Britain.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0To claim Argentina is a peaceful country, is once again laughable. Trying to deny the human rights of people just because they have the right to keep their home is not a peaceful action. And for Argentina to keep claiming that Britain keep breaking UN Resolutions from 1964 is shameful. ARGENTINA INVADED THE FALKLANDS IN 1982. Argentina loses all moral ground on the issue of warmongering. THink, Marcos, et al, you need to realise the reality of the situation. You will never succeed in your imperial objective of aggressively occupying the Falklands. You are the aggressive ones, we are just defending what is ours.
“The ”Malvinas Issue” is fast becoming a ”Media Commodity” in Britain…
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let’s keep it that way….”
I've yet to see it on the news. And had not one person bring it up in conversation with me.
Well what can honest abiding people say to that,
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But agree with every word, Argentina needs to wake up and understand just how much terror and bloodshed she caused by the invasion.
And even now the Falklanders are still finding land mines that Argentina should be paying to find and remove safely.
Argentina has so much to put right, but responds with more threats and rubbish, until she can repair the damage , she will have to live with the shame
“The only concern is the defence of the Falkland Islands, the mistrust of Argentina,”
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0M_of_FI:
What you need to understand is, that it's ok for Argentina to provoke the islanders, blockade you, and harass you. Thats not warmongering.
But if you are talking about defending people, it's classed as being a warmonger.
It all depends on if you are Argentine or not. Logic need not apply.
Well back to the base, see you bloggers later maybe
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 03:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@TIT
Nov 12th, 2010 - 03:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0..speaking spanish in a few months....torturing your family....
WTF are you blithering about?
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hey Titan, did you eat some haggis or you were born that way. Estas loquito pibe.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm happy enough speaking english thanks.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah, terrified. Yawn.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Attacking would require getting onto the islands. A ship would have to land at the islands. A bit difficult when you have four Eurofighters circling.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even then you would have to beat the current 2000 people residing there.
Going by last times numbers when 5000 of our men Captured 10,000 of yours. You would require 4000 men to survive the landing to even take the islands. Which would needed to be done within 24 hours, before reinforcements from air came.
No chance.
The warmongering does not surprise me coming from Chileans, they're always wanting to see Argentina biting the dust, they want to live long lives to see this happening one day, we're the center of their lives, and they always gravitate around Argentina. But from Uruguayans? That's unconceivable, we're still feeding thousands of Uruguayan sorry arses in our country, giving them jobs and paying them GOOD money! (Natalia Oreiro please say “Thank you”)
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There will be no return to a war, Argentina's government wants to talk about the islands, the British government wants what? I've read this editorial be J. Brook at http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5849&source=3
and I can't understand why these islanders posting on Mercopress articles say what they say, when J. Brook tells a different story. Are you people really islanders? Or what?
Shame on you:
Elements of the UK press are focusing on a war that won't exist, allowing economic, political and diplomatic pressure from Argentina to wreak havoc on Falklands' businesses and relations with other nations in the area to go unreported and ignored. Many Islanders feel that those elements of the UK press pushing for a war are doing their readership a disservice by keeping them from knowing what really is happening in the South Atlantic.
If you want a story that sells, try telling the truth. It's better than the fiction you are putting out as fact. -J. Brook-
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“J. Brook tells a different story Are you people really islanders? Or what? ”
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Because different people have different oppinions?
Just because a person wrote a book does not mean that is the absolute end of fact and feel of life or how people feel on the islands.
“Argentina's government wants to talk about the islands, the British government wants what?”
And i'll keep saying: there is nothing to talk about. The british government has already stated that unless the islanders change there mind, there will be no change or discussion about the islanders sovereignty.
So what else is there to talk about?
TITAN:
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There aren't many planes in the world who can land in total fog. Mostly big passenger airliners and the Airport has to have specific equipment to do so.
The EF's while in combat have taken on upto 4 aircraft and beaten them in combat mock ups, newer aircraft than what you currently have.
It wouldn't be fair to your pilots to put them up against EuroFighters.
@TIT
Nov 12th, 2010 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still don't know what the hell you're baning on about, interpreting your rather bizarre lingo it seems you're suggesting you're going to retake the Falklands in a 'few months'....dear oh dear, what shall we do? (yawn)
@ 63 Zethee, you remember me of Videla. Can't you understand what “talk” means? and what talking involves and what not? If there is a voice, you can't shut it up, you will listen to what the voice is saying and see what you and the other person can do about the claims. If there is a voice, it means there is something that needs to be talked about. Talking does not mean you will give the islands to Argentina, talking means a chance to come to an agreement about the whole issue. That's all what talking is about Zethee. TALKING!
Nov 12th, 2010 - 05:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have no idea what Titan is posting, he could be asking me for a date for all I know, someone please make him/her aware that I'm happily married and not in need of his/her attentions, thanks.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@xbarilox. You are a fool. Which country's constitution claims sovereignty over the Falklands? Which country is operating (unsuccessful) economic sanctions against the Falklands and persuading other South American countries to do the same? Which country does not recognise the Falkland Islanders as a people and will not negotiate with their government? Sixty or seventy years ago those FACTS would have justified war. So guess the identity of the tossers who are actually warmongering. It isn't the Islanders, who just want to be left alone in peace. It isn't Britain, that has enough on its plate. Engaged in a UN-mandated conflict that Argentina was too cowardly to lend a hand with. Noticed that, have you? Argentina only goes to the UN when it thinks it can fiddle something. When the UN needs or requires something, Argentina doesn't want to know
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You may be stupid, but we aren't. Every effort is being made to persuade the British government to send more forces to the Falklands. Sending HMS Ark Royal instead of decommissioning it. Sending 75 Harrier GR9s instead of scrapping them. Sending Challenger 2 MBTs and artillery pieces, to make the Islands truly impregnable.
68 Tphoon #68
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Man, of course not, you're not stupid.
“Talking does not mean you will give the islands to Argentina”the table,
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If ownership is off the table, what else is there to talk about? we've tried other things like oil sharing, you walked out.
xbarilox
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you slag off your neighbours so badly have you no compassion for the less well off, or do you consider that Argentina is to good to be associated with them, that’s arrogant , rude and spiteful.
Im sure you do not represent the argentine people [or do you] Xbox
@ Zethee 70
Nov 13th, 2010 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Have our countries ever talked about this? I mean in an open and honest way. No, instead of talking we're like hating on each other since ever. Since like 1810! It's tiring and sick not in a good way. Don't you think? Time has come for us to talk about this.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-sovereignty-argentina-britain
Here I am thinking that the UK is still acting like they're Lords of the land, and you're not alone in this part of the world. You can't say “thare's nothing to talk about” like you are the King! I'm sorry to say, but you are wrong. That's not the right approach on this issue.
“The only question is who did have the best claim at the time when we finally annexed the islands. I think undoubtedly the United Province of Buenos Aires . And the British ambassador in Argentina, Sir Malcolm Robertson, wrote in 1927: ”I must confess that, until I received that memorandum myself a few weeks ago, I had no idea of the strength of the Argentine case nor of the weakness of ours.”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting article
“Have our countries ever talked about this? I mean in an open and honest way. No, instead of talking we're like hating on each other since ever. Since like 1810! It's tiring and sick not in a good way. Don't you think? Time has come for us to talk about this.”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0You don't get it, do you? it's not about the UK and Argentina. It's the Falklands and Argentina. Untill you realise that you wont get anywhere.
As long as the islanders wishes are met, the UK is happy. If they wish to go independant, we are happy, if they wish to join argentina, we would be happy, if they wish to stay with us, we are happy.
Untill you nation realises that the argument is not between the UK anr Argentina, and it is infact between the islands and Argentina how can anyone expect to take you seriously?
@ Zethee
Nov 13th, 2010 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was reading about the Government of The Falklands:
Government British Overseas Territory (constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democratic dependency)
- Monarch Queen Elizabeth II
- Governor Nigel Haywood
- Chief Executive Tim Thorogood[2]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
His Excellency
Nigel Haywood CVO
Governor of the Falkland Islands
Incumbent
Assumed office
16 October 2010
Monarch Elizabeth II
Chief Executive Tim Thorogood
Preceded by Alan Huckle
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
The British Overseas Territories are fourteen territories of the United Kingdom which, although they do not form part of the United Kingdom itself, fall under its jurisdiction.[1] They are remnants of the British Empire that have not acquired independence. The name “British Overseas Territory” was introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, and replaced the name British Dependent Territory, which was introduced by the British Nationality Act 1981. Before 1981, the territories were known as colonies or Crown colonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
When one reads “Monarch: Elizabeth II”, Nigel Robert Haywood (he's not even a Falklander, just an English man appointed Governor of the Falkland Islands and Commissioner for South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands), and that the British overseas territories are remnants of the British Empire that have not acquired independence. The name “British Overseas Territory” was introduced by the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, before 1981, the territories were known as colonies or Crown colonies.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
When one reads this, it looks like you still are a British Colony. Because to be honest, it was all just a change of name from Colonies to Overseas. The use of these territories is the same.
Morecrap -
Nov 13th, 2010 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 01) the British claimed the islands in 1695
2) the Britisg came close to war with Spain over the islands in 1771, forcing Spain to back down
3) Britain was administering the islands in the 1820's and providing permission for adventurers such as Vernett to go to the islands
4) one diplomat's opinion in 1927 does not a case make!
In any case the action of 1833 firmly established the islands as British. According to accepted International Law ..... we won the conflict, so we get to keep what we have unless otherwise provided for in any Treaty!! The same could be argued for 1982
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uti_possidetis
@ Redhoyt #76
Nov 13th, 2010 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0:)
“Is it not time for Britain to stop behaving like a 19th-century colonial power and heed the call of the United Nations to discuss the question of sovereignty with Argentina?”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting article in #72
“As long as the islanders wishes are met, the UK is happy”
What islanders Zethe?
Nice excuse.
@ RoytHoyd
Nov 13th, 2010 - 03:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You can do nothing with the Uti Possidetis, please go and read History Books, not only those printed in the UK. It is a shame to see how ignorant you are coming with that crap of the Uti Possidetis. Argentina took possesion of the Islands in 1820. Please, read about the Argentine Puerto Soledad. The British took over the islands in 1833 and changed the name to Port Louis, and then moved the administrative centre to the newly established Port Stanley in 1845.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerto_Soledad
You can read this in printed books. Don't come up with that crap of Uti Possidetis, this case is not one of those of the Uti Possidetis crap crap crap.
Argentina was there before the British. If you can't count 1830 is before 1833.
#35 Think, Very good article you posted.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5849&source=3
“Shame on you:
Elements of the UK press are focusing on a war that won't exist, allowing economic, political and diplomatic pressure from Argentina to wreak havoc on Falklands' businesses and relations with other nations in the area to go unreported and ignored”
As you took them away from us, will re-take them, one day. Malvinas Argentina. I'm going out tonight with my girlfriend, some friends and one of my brothers. See you tomorrow, Pirates!
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'll drink some fernandos in your memory. Aguante Quilmes carajo! Long live Argentina!
75 xbarilox
Nov 13th, 2010 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the isladers wish to be british, and under the the power of the queen(sorry for spelling mistakes, im a little drunk)
Isn't that what .democracy is? the power of choise?
Xbog - How could Argentina have taken the islands in 1820 when Britain already had them? And 1895 is before 1820 .... and 1771 is before 1820 .... lots happened before Argentina existed :-)
Nov 13th, 2010 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0And if Axel wishes to rely on Uti Possidetis Juris why can't I promote the original, and internationally recognised, Uti Possedetis ?
Beginning to look like XCrap :-)
think & xbox are not making much sense. they are either drunk or in the first stages of dementia or both. the Argentineans seem to be losing their cool. l guess it may have finally sunk in that they will never own the Falklands(which are not theirs anyway).xbox sure has changed his tune. a few months ago he said that he recognised that the islands were not theirs. now he calls us pirates & threatens to“retake”them. & so what if the Falklands have a British governor. what business is that of yours,Argentina? we will have a Turkish or Madagascan governor if we want one.nothing to do with you.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0&@78 marcos.will you discuss the sovereignty of Argentina with Japan or Poland? no?why not? you want us to discuss our sovereignty. once again, mind your own business, there is nothing for you here
TITAN doesn't seem to be having much luck! all his comments are removed
Of course I meant 1695 .... never learnt to type!
Nov 13th, 2010 - 11:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0@xbox.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are still a fool. The United Provinces of South America (not Argentina since it didn't exist) sneaked in in 1820 (courtesy of a pirate) to try to seize territory from which the owner was temporarily absent.
Bit like you going down to the store and, when you get back, finding someone else living in your shack.
But then Argies are only good at relating bits of history that suit them. By the way, are you bright enough to remember that, not so long ago, your president said it was not a historical claim.
You see, sonny boy, it's over. Your lies, your underhandness, ignoring international law when it suits you are all obvious now. It's over. Britain, or the UK whichever you prefer, will NEVER discuss the Falkland Islands with Argentina because we have promised the Falklanders that we won't. So if you want a peaceful, honest, democratic talk with someone about the Falklands, try the Falkland Islands Government.
“So if you want a peaceful, honest, democratic talk with someone about the Falklands, try the Falkland Islands Government.”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree, the issue is between the islanders and Argentina. But talking to them would mean recognising that they are a “people” and Argentina isn't willing.
It's crazy to say that Argentina will attack the islands.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do not worry that the defense is sufficient with Mr. Bean
No one said will, they said “if”.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 084 lsolde , “will you discuss the sovereignty of Argentina with ...”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry Isolde but is always better to deal with the owner of the circus(UK) and not with the monkeys :-)
Do it then Marcos, see how far you get. It's interesting to see that you have no idea how British Overseas Territories work, the UK is not protecting their own interests no matter what you RGs want to believe, they are protecting our interests....so you see you do need to deal with the monkeys.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
WestisBest,“ you have no idea how British Overseas Territories work”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I saw how it works in Chagos Islands and Malvinas. Before that short war of 1982 the islanders there were treated as a second class citizens.
I would not wish them to suffer a similar fate to that of the Chagossians. and the fact that Britain upholds the 'principle of democratic self-determination' for the inhabitants of its small remaining colonies only when that accords with the UK's economic interests.
And what happened in the months where Argentina was in charge. The beaches were mined and the teenies have yet to pay for themto be cleared, 5% of the adult population were imprisoned without charge and 52 children were seperated from their parents and sent to Argentina.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Meanwhile bewildered Argentine conscripts who were told the Islanders were Spanish speaking and hated the yoke of their British oppressors couldn't understand why they didn't get a ticker tape parade when theymarched into Stanley or how the British managed to occupy the islands and oppress and maintain order amoung the Islanders with 50 troops.
It reminds me of the Mitchell & Webb sketch in which one Nazi officer says to another, “Have you noticed that our caps actually have little pictures of skulls on them?” He is leading tentatively to a dark revelation, “Hans, are we the baddies?”
when that accords with the UK's economic interests.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was Operation Corporate done for economic reasons?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsNLbK8_rBY
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 093 RICO , Too much drinking at Deano's last night?
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was against the war of our self elected Gov.
And I remind you that the only islanders killed were at the hands of your own Royal Navy.
I think the Argentine govt should take responsibility for all the casualties. They did after all launch a suprise attack on a friendly nation.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 05:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It was a disgrace that islanders died during the liberationbut full responsibilty for theentire incident sitswith the agressor. The current Argentine govt position that the teenies should never agains seek to use force against the Islanders is pretty much admission that their predecessors were wrong.
“Before that short war of 1982 the islanders there were treated as a second class citizens.”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And how well was your government treating it's people in that period?
The self elected dictators backed by US? Like sh..
Nov 13th, 2010 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the islanders at Malvinas by UK Democratic elected Gov. in London? Second class citizens.
@96 Marcos. Do not think for one moment that by saying “I was against the war of our self elected Gov.” that you absolve yourself of responsibility. I have said it before and I will say it again here. Every Argentine over the age of 10 in 1982 was and is responsible for the war. And every Argentine that currently subscribes to the concept that the Falklands should come under Argentine rule will be responsible for the next one.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0100 Typhoon , According to your logic, every British over the age of 10 is responsible for Irak, Afghanistan ...wars? Non sense .
Nov 13th, 2010 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nowhere in South Atlantic or Pacific coast is a British colony. Only in Malvinas Islands taken by force.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Never forget.
@ 86 Typhoon - Come up with the truth, and we'll talk about it.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm jumpig out of bed and writing this down for you people. “Cocktail Maggie” A story of life and duty.
PM- Let's not panic, people, those Argies will give us some time to leave these lands.
Toddy- Are ya sure?
PM- I guess so.
FC- Children and women first!
Johnny Cue- Me first! Me first!
FC- Wait a minute, you're not a woman.
Johnny Cue- Of course I am a woman, take a look at this...
FC- Gross! Ok, you go first.
Johnny Cue- Thank you my dearest FC.
FC- Hey, I think we can talk about it, you know, later...
Johnny Cue- Oh, you lousy boy lol
FC- chick chick prrr
Johnny Cue- Oh, don't touch that, you vicious lol
Tupper- Hey, where is Maggie? Any idea?
Crowned Prince- Maggie who? Who's Maggie?
Tupper- I'm not sure, but I feel like we're forgetting something important, it could be this Maggie.
Cryssie- I've found her, I've found her!
Crowned Prince and Olivia- You've found what?
Cryssie- Maggie, I've found her!
Tupper- Where is she? Where is Maggie?
All together- Yeah, where is Maggie?
Cryssie- She's here!
Olivia- A broom? So, is this Maggie?
Cryssie- Yes! She's Maggie! Well, what's left of her, she's like 90 yrs old now.
Crowned Prince- But I thought that Maggie was a woman.
Cryssie- She is! Well, almost.
Betty Botter- Kids lol
FC- We set sail for Mother Land!
Naughty Jay- Why these boats? Why can we not have a cruise liner or a BA's aeroplane?
Crowned Prince- Sadly, we can't! Queen wants her mistletoes for Christmas.
Naughty Jay- OMG! I want some mistletoe too, darling, but I thought that things were getting better.
Boat people- Good bye islands, good bye ovines! We'll never see you again!
Kids- Will we be accepted to live in Great Britain?
All at once- We hope so! We don't know, really. we don't know... we're in the hands of the sea... God, help us, we sink!
Meanwhile at the Chubbies' Pub -Stanley- Maggie, alone... Continues-->
I was against the war of our self elected Gov.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That old chestnut,the crowds seem pretty content
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUDbhRbPlD8&feature=related
-Second Part- Maggie at Cubbies' Pub...
Nov 13th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-Where is the barman when you need him? I need another glass of this juicy red juice, but I want it rough this time, yeah...hiccup. You, pretty bottle, come with me babe, don't be shy you pretty bottle, I've got a crrrrush on you...
Maggie around the town...
-Hey, I didn't know that sunny days were so horrible. I feel like cheese...hiccup. What do you think, pretty bottle? huh? Talk to me pretty bottle, talk to me...
Roaring engines...
Maggie- What the heck is that? Argies, you can't.... boom!
You still can find her at the Wax Museum, she's a statue there, she's always there.
Malvinas Argentinas, in my heart, forever and ever! Aguante Quilmes!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/comment/jeffrandall/7819327/Gordon-Browns-henchmen-are-rewriting-history-as-we-sink-into-the-red.html
“ ... Nowhere in South Atlantic or Pacific coast is a British colony. Only in Malvinas Islands taken by force.....”
Nov 14th, 2010 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hey, might is right, how else did Argentina get to be so big?
106 Redhoyt :
Nov 14th, 2010 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0According to a survey taken by educated Argentines, Argentina has lost territory since it's birth.
Logic need not apply.
Red hoyt: Is admitting that the islands were taken by force?
Nov 14th, 2010 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Say it. would be honest.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A&feature=related
Yup ... the threat of war took the islands in 1771 and eliminated the Spanish claim. And of course, a little mild threat ejected the trespassing garrison from BA in 1833. And then again, in 1982 .......
Nov 14th, 2010 - 03:25 am - Link - Report abuse 01771. The Anglo-Spanish incident last year is released when Frederick Lord North expressed confidence the Spanish ambassador, French, and that, quote, ”he could not speak ministerial Egmont abandonment after a brief return of the same, but if the ambassador promised that this conversation would not be made public, I would say confidently that (the British) did not want to keep the island Saunders (Trinidad) that are worth nothing and that if Spain was the satisfaction demanded by the Crown, evacuated safely. unquote .
Nov 14th, 2010 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0What utter rubbish! The Spanish backed down and no 'secret' clause existed. More nonsense from Argentina. There is no evidence that Lord North made any such statement. Any rumour was merely put out by the Spanish to 'save face'.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Check the letter sent by Viscount Palmerston to Moreno in 1834. It explains things rather better.
Good video Malvinense1833 !
Nov 14th, 2010 - 06:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Ireland!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A&feature=related
Go on home British soldier, go on home
Have you got no...
what a collection of lies & bitterness & twisting of history the Argentineans spruik. reconcile yourselves to the truth amigos. the Falklands are not yours, have never been yours & will never be yours. for you, finito la musica, develope your own country, leave us alone. we do not want anything to do with you.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0So , now we have xbox (showing how juvenile he is), Malvinosense and Marcos (I'm a dummy)
Nov 14th, 2010 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I certainly have no intention of spending any great time pointing out your idiocies. I have better things to do with my life.
But here is a truth. The Falkland Islands are a British territory. They will remain a British territory until they choose to transition to being the independent country of the Falkland Islands.
That is the future and there is nothing you weevils can do about it. Britain will never permit you to take the archipelago by force and will ignore or circumvent anything else.
If you foresee anything else, I'll be glad to arrange for your crystal balls to be smashed together. Now why don't you go use your boundless energy to try to turn Argentina into a respectable country?
Thank you Marcos Alejandro. Peace boys.... peace. No war, no force, dialogue, friendship. sorry my bad english. Greetings to John Fowler, a great person. I would like to see.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how you use the Irish as some kind of justification for the Argentine claim Marcos. You accuse the UK of denying the Irish a right to choose their own destiny, yet that's exactly what you would have for the Falkland Islanders.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You need to get your powers of logic checked up by a specialist Marcos, cos you're not exactly displaying any at the moment...
Idiots like Marcos,have a romantic view of the IRA
Nov 14th, 2010 - 04:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the early hours of 24 October 1990 armed and masked IRA volunteers took the family of Patrick “Patsy” Gillespie hostage. Gillespie was a Catholic who worked as a cook for the British Army and so was seen by the IRA as a collaborator and legitimate target.
The IRA forced him to drive a car loaded with 1,000 pounds of explosives to the British Army checkpoint at Coshquin on the border between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. When he arrived at the checkpoint the bomb was detonated by remote control, killing Gillespie and five soldiers from the Kings Regiment.
Who's talking about the IRA? , Come on guys, an Irish YouTube video honoring William Brown and saying“ Malvinas Argentinas ” (true statement by the way) get you so upset? Sing along...
Nov 14th, 2010 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A&feature=related
calm, who' talking about the IRA? It is a tribute to William Brown, the history is the history although to some do not like or change
Nov 14th, 2010 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You quote 'history' but then get your facts wrong ...... your version needs more research Malvin !
Nov 15th, 2010 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ Redhoyt #120
Nov 15th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're putting too much effort in trying to prove us wrong, but you can't. All you Brits have to say to us, is that you are free to decide, lol. Free? You're not even a country, you're just an overseas territory (AKA COLONY). Your governor is an English puppet! How come you say you're Falklanders when you're governor is an English man?!?! Brits go home, that shows that you are what we say, aliens, intruders, OKUPAS. You'll have to go, sooner or later.
your version needs more research Malvin ! Tell me what book I read to learn your version. I recommend a book The Struggle for the Falklands Islands of Julius Goebel.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0My pleasure - http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf - I believe that there is a spanish version available too.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 03:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also try -
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdfo/history/hindex.html
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
I also suggest that you read Viscount Palmerston's letter to the Argentine Foreign Minister of 1834 which not only provides a clear view of the British position, but was rather more contemporaneous.
Also try Charles Darwin's diary ..... after all he passed through the islands in February 1833.
@ redhoyt #123
Nov 15th, 2010 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing containing these words “FALKLAND ISLANDS ARE BRITISH ISLANDS” is worthy of being considered as a good article, book, or whatever you like to list.
Charles Darwin, the monkey man. PAHLEEEEZZZZZZZZZE!!!!
LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS, RED, GET IT INTO YOUR HEAD, YOU POTHEAD!
They are!!! Wow ... but, hang on .....
Nov 15th, 2010 - 04:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British live on the islands. The British administer the islands. The British make use of the island's resources. The British have troops on the islands. The British come and go as they please to the islands. The British fly their flag over the islands. The British have been there, with one minor interruption, for 177 years (nearly 178 :-). The British control who can visit the islands ......... and on, and on ....
Now tell xbrain ..... what evidence do you have that the Falkland Islands are Argentine ??
125 hoytred “The British have been there, with one minor interruption”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong.
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century.
It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 ”
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
Redhoyt #125 Before I go, there is something for you here that I want you to see. IT'S BIG, SO GET READY! Learn Geography, and learn this name well: ¡MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!
Nov 15th, 2010 - 07:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.visitingargentina.com.ar/mapas/mapa-politico-argentina.htm
Morecrap - idiota ..... mathematics not a strong subject??
Nov 15th, 2010 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 ...” - who? Vernett? Or the one who never actually attempted to go to the islands? The British were administering the islands in the 1820's and objected every attempt Argentina made to make out that the islands belonged to BA. Vernett went with British permission. The fantasies of BA are irrelevant.
Xbrain - no, sorry ... doesn't ring any bells. Reality a problem for you??
@ Redhoyt #128
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The British were administering the islands in the 1820's ” What kind of garbage are you injecting into your body? Now this noob wants to overwrite History, Spanish history, Argentina's history, lol.
I won't waste more bullets shooting at this chimango.
You deny that the British gave Vernett permission to go to the islands?
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's recorded. There's evidence.
You deny that the British objected diplomatically when BA tried to appoint a Governor over the islands?
It's recorded. There's evidence.
You need to read more ExBrain :-)
Xbox if Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in South America and the “adjacent Islands” then please do explain our presence in Guyana and Belize and the “adjacent Islands” of the Caribbean?
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0I also distinctly recall that by 1815 the Spanish empire was no longer a ruling entity in South America, thus even if any agreement was signed in the wording you claim, it was nullified by the fact, there was no Spanish empire to actively challenge any claims by other powers.
Xblox
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0”You're not even a country, you're just an overseas territory (AKA COLONY). Your governor is an English puppet! How come you say you're Falklanders when you're governor is an English man?!?!”
You RG's crack me up, you live in your little paranoid bubble where everything is black & white, if people don't fit into your idea of the world they must be out to get you, if anyone disagrees with you they must be a liar, an idiot, a pirate and so on, where you think that meaningless parroting of simplistic, outdated disinformation is going to help your cause, where any system of government you don't understand is a joke, a farce.
When are you going to at least try to understand how the rest of the world works?
#131 British presence in Guyana is the result of military actions:
Nov 15th, 2010 - 01:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The area was originally settled by the Dutch at the start of the 17th century as the colonies of Essequibo, Demerara, and Berbice. These three colonies were captured by the British in 1796; they were returned to the (Dutch) Batavian Republic in 1802, but were again captured by British forces a year later and were officially ceded to the United Kingdom in 1814, and consolidated into a single colony in 1831“
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Guiana
Belize's british occupation has economic roots. Nevertheless, the difference lies in that it was pirates and buccaneers, not militarymen, the ones that carried it out:
”Early in the 17th century, in southeastern Mexico and on the Yucatán Peninsula, English buccaneers began cutting logwood (Haematoxylum campechianum), which was used in the production of a textile dye. According to legend, one of these buccaneers, Peter Wallace, called “Ballis” by the Spanish, settled near and gave his name to the Belize River as early as 1638. English buccaneers began using the coastline as a base from which to attack Spanish ships. Buccaneers stopped plundering Spanish logwood ships and started cutting their own wood in the 1650s and 1660s. Logwood extraction then became the main reason for the English settlement for more than a century. A 1667 treaty, in which the European powers agreed to suppress piracy, encouraged the shift from buccaneering to cutting logwood and led to more permanent settlement.[2]
Conflict continued between Britain and Spain over the right of the British to cut logwood and to settle in the region. In 1717 Spain expelled British logwood cutters from the Bay of Campeche west of the Yucatán.[2] During the 18th century, the Spanish attacked the British settlers repeatedly. The Spanish never settled in the region, however, and the British always returned to expand their trade and settlement. The 1763 Treaty of Paris conceded to Britain the right to
Roytred, “The British were administering the islands in the 1820's ”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong.
Did you read the British history site that I posted or you need glasses?
Not even your own historians believe in your non-sense lies.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
The British were administering the islands in the 1820's ”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong.
The British are administering the islands in 2010
Right
135 stick up
Nov 15th, 2010 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The British are administering the islands in 2010
Right”
After tons of lies, you finally throw some facts, stick. This is the only thing that British can rely on to say that las Islas Malvinas are British. But, let's call it for what it is, stick: stealing, instead of administering, stick. The Brits administered India, but they kicked you out of the country. I told ya, like many countries got rid of you Brits, will do the same.
¡Malvinas Argentinas!
I told ya, like many countries got rid of you Brits, will do the same.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well I cant see the Falklanders kicking us out any time soon,and if you meant Argentina,LOL
The Falklanders? They're Brits, just like yourself, I meant all of you Brits, stick.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These Caribbean islands are not South Atlantic.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was never a British colony in the South Atlantic or South Pacific.
Remember the British ambitions: Buenos Aires 1806-1807 and prior with to the recommendations of Admiral Anson
@134 Marcos.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your use of the britishempire site is ludicrous. A project by a retired teacher! Who has admitted to me that he knows that some of what is on his site is wrong.
A quote from the site “First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance.”
He doesn't even know how to spell “rigorous”.
Try a credible source.
I know, many honest British historian tell the truth about Malvinas history...
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of ”serious“ errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
Eddie Izzard tells it like it is: Do you have a flag?
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's how they do it lol funny, but sad and true
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uEx5G-GOS1k
One day we'll get this British invaders out of our Islas Malvinas, it doesn't matter how long it takes. We'll stand our ground until the day we get our Islas Malvinas back.
...stand your ground???? LOL
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0like you did in 82? couldn't run away fast enough and haven't looked back since. PMSL
you just keep 'standing your ground', that'll teach us, maybe we'll die laughing. ROFL
:-))))))
There will be no war, Mae West, we don't need to fight another war. You're doing all the work.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_jAarLVuB2uo/TEz-aU2oLFI/AAAAAAAAB48/_B4MtGKF7UQ/s400/MaeWest%5B1%5D.jpg
A question - if the British were not the administering power over the islands in the 1820's, why did Vernett go to them to obtain permission for his venture?
Nov 15th, 2010 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What in the world do you smoke roytred?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Permission to who? Penguins???
Brits were gone long before that.
@Redhoyt
Nov 16th, 2010 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The British live on the islands. The British administer the islands. The British make use of the island's resources. The British have troops on the islands. The British come and go as they please to the islands. The British fly their flag over the islands. The British have been there, with one minor interruption, for 177 years (nearly 178 :-). The British control who can visit the islands ......... and on, and on ....Now tell xbrain ..... what evidence do you have that the Falkland Islands are Argentine ??”
The Pakistani do the same in Britain do you mean that UK belong to them?
@Typhoon
You are loosing your touch mate, “Try sticking your greasy snouts on our territory without permission again and you can find out”
Without your permission haha naaahhhh you are joking. Are you?
Buenos Aires Nov 15 2010
Dear Typhoon
Stanley
FI
Of my major concern:
I’m writing to you Sir to ask your explicit permission and by writing to send ours Amphibious Commandos troops to invade your Island next Sunday (Domingo) 28 of the current month at 00200 o’clock
As our Operations Tactic Command (CTO) based in Buenos Aires in Av. del Libetador 54 floor 10 off 38 have planned to lunch an amphibious operation classified as “Dwelling Malvinas Tour 2010”.
After we cleaned up the Islands of any resistance from British troops we ask you to have dinner ready for 4.000 hungry and angry men at 00300.
You have been formally notified.
Yours sincerely,
Nico Din
Commander in Chief of south Atlantic region.
Morecrap .... there's written evidence that Vernett had British permission. Now how do you explain it? Oh, I forgot ... you can't.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Facts do tend to defeat Argentina's spurious version of history :-)
You enjoying your fantasy Nicodin?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0148 Rotted,
Nov 16th, 2010 - 01:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0The first Argentine Authorities.
During the last fortnight of October of 1820, the Argentine Naval Frigate “La Heroína” left the port of Buenos Aires. Her destiny was Port Louis and her Commanding Officer, Naval Colonel David Jewett, carried orders to set up installations in the islands. His settlement was formalized on the 6th of November 1820 and was witnessed by several United States citizens and British subjects. One of these was the British navigator James Weddell, a specially invited guest of Jewett who had received a copy of a circular issued by him explaining his intention of consolidating a Colon y at Port Louis. Weddell duly informed his Government about the contents of the invitation he had received from Jewett which read “……. Commissioned by the Supreme Government of Buenos Aires to take possession of the Islands in name of the Country to which they rightfully belonged by Natural Law.” The British Government did not, at any time, lodge
any protest before the Argentine Government nor before any other authority in relation to the acts conducted by Jewett at Port Louis.
Shortly after this formal possession, Guillermo Mason was named as Jewett’s successor as Governor of the Malvinas/ Falklands. In 1823, the Buenos Aires Province awarded the partners Jorge Pacheco and Louis Vernet with a land Concession and commercial exploitation privileges of the East Falkland (Isla Soledad). Also, in early 1824 Army Captain Pablo Areguati was designated as the Military Commanding Officer in the archipelago. Another important point (perhaps the most important) is that in 1823, the United Kingdom officially recognized Argentina’s independence from Spain and, in 1825 signed a Navigation, Commerce and Friendship Treaty between both countries without making any reservations about the acts of Argentine sovereignty that had been carried out in the Islands. Nor did any other Nation or State present counterclaims over the territory.
MoreCrap - “ ... One Argentine privateer was the Heroína, which sailed in 1820
Nov 16th, 2010 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0commanded by an American called David Jewett – at that time all South American navies were crewed by British and American seamen. Professor Dolzer says Jewett was sent “with special instructions to acquire possession of the islands”, and many Argentine sources state the same, though there is absolutely no evidence for that assertion and much evidence against it. Jewett left the River Plate in the Heroína on 21 March 1820 in search of Spanish victims. He spent seven months, from March to October 1820, vainly looking for Spanish prizes, but his voyage was a disaster. His crew were sick with scurvy and mutinous, and he had to execute six of them. Above all, he found no Spanish ships, but in the end he captured a Portuguese one, the Carlota, which was piracy, since Argentina and Portugal were not at war. He would probably have taken the Carlota to Buenos Aires as a prize, but he lost her in a storm, so he decided to sail to the Falklands, where his crew could recover but not desert him, and he no doubt hoped to capture any Spanish ships that arrived there. Otherwise he would have had to return empty-handed to Buenos Aires, with no financial gain to the shareholders and crew. His ship was barely seaworthy when he arrived in the Falklands on 27 October 1820, and he had only 12 fit men...”
What is more, when he got to the islands there were many British Whalers and Sealers.
Your history is flawed, Morecrap :-)
Rotted,...”Its reasonable to conclude that the British occupation of the Falkland/Malvinas in 1833 was totally illegal and lacked any juridical support. It was carried out with a conduct that International Law had long condemned. At the time of the offence the Islands were an integral part of the Argentine Republic and the United Kingdom had taken the islands with a military force, seizing them from an independent State that had inherited them from Spain
Nov 16th, 2010 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0, and had perfected its title through the formal act of possession, on the 20th of November 1820. At the time of the British seizure, Argentina was in effective and real dominion of the Islands, and she had established authorities and colonists in the territory that were expelled by Great Britain.
It is equally important to emphasis here, that the illegality of the British invasion, on taking the Islands in 1833, has been recognized by various historians, academics and legal advisors assigned by the British Foreign Office to undertake investigations on the subject, in the attempt to find juridical justification substantiating the British actions at Port Louis. Likewise, The eminent Swiss international jurist, Emer de Vattel,(1714 –1767), established jurisprudence for cases such as this, declaring that “…. no Nation has the right to expel the inhabitants from the lands of another Country with the sole purpose of occupying that land itself.”
Under Vattel’s doctrine and in accordance with the norms of international law during the 18th and 19th centuries, the British seizure of the Falkland/Malvinas in 1833 was absolutely illegal and this occupation on its own, does not provide the juridical substance to acquire a legal title to them.
On the other hand, the British presence in argentine territory of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands continues to be illegal because Argentina has never legalized this presence since the time of the illicit appropriation of them in 1833.”
MoreCrap ... you need to get another book!
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0” .. The eminent Swiss international jurist, Emer de Vattel,(1714 –1767) ... “
So he was dead 60 odd years before the events of 1833 ........ nothing more modern, Crappy??
” ... in accordance with the norms of international law during the 18th and 19th centuries, the British seizure of the Falkland/Malvinas in 1833 was absolutely illegal ....“
Where does it say that then? And I mean legal sources Crappy, not some obscure historian's opinion.
” ... On the other hand, the British presence in argentine territory of the Falkland/Malvinas Islands continues to be illegal because Argentina has never legalized this presence since the time of the illicit appropriation of them in 1833.....”
Nothing illegal about it Crappy .... explained by Viscount Palmerston to the Argentine Foreign Minister in his reply of 1834. And it ain't up to Argentina!
But hey, if you're so sure ...... why not take the case to the ICJ ???????
Rotted,” .. The eminent Swiss international jurist, Emer de Vattel,(1714 –1767) ... “ I know , I posted that rotted.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0His doctrine “ no Nation has the right to expel the inhabitants from the lands of another Country with the sole purpose of occupying that land itself.”
'you need to get another book!'
OK, Let's see...
The book The Last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell p. 200
”1833,The British commander raise the Union Jack,claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840,a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a British pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the British takeover,and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands“
Another one
”The act of force of 1833, carried out in peacetime without prior communication or declaration by a government friendly to the Argentine Republic, was immediately rejected and protested against. On 16 January 1833, when news of the events in the Malvinas Islands reached Buenos Aires, the Argentine government demanded explanations from the British Chargé d'Affaires who was unaware of the actions carried out by vessels of his country”
1884:
Argentina asks that the sovereignty dispute be submitted to international arbitration but Britain ignores the request.
1960: UN Resolution 1514 calls for an end to colonialism. Britain lists the Islands as a colony and Argentina objects.
1965: UN Resolution 2065 asserts that the Falklands/Malvinas constitute a colony and calls on Britain and Argentina to negotiate
John Troutbeck, a senior official of British Foreign Ministry in 1936: “... our taking possession of the Falkland Islands in 1833 .. was so arbitrary that it is not so easy to explain our position without showing us themselves as international outlaws. ”
can we not claim Gibraltar too?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0We send some drug dealers friend of Sticky in Villa 31 and then we wait until they reproduce to its normal 30% rate in a couple of years we ask for their self determination.
After all UKi was doing this for so long. Why we cannot do the same?
Regarding whether Jewett was sent or not you are arguing over something that is legally irrelevant. What Jewett did is legally irrelevant because if the Falklands were British before 1816, they were still British in 1816, in 1820, in 1829, and in 1833 as the UK had not relinquished its claim and Argentina never established any effective control over them during this period, and if they were Spanish before 1816, they were still Spanish in 1816, in 1820, in 1829, and in 1833 as Spain had not yet relinquished them, nor any other part of its territories in the Americas, not even Argentina itself, and Argentina never established any effective control over them during this period. Either way, they are not, and never have been, Argentine.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still not reading the right books MoreCrap, only those that you hope support you. Forget individual opinions of obscure historians (or even obscure diplomats), trying forming some ideas of your own by going to the original sources. You have plenty in the National Archive in BA, as we have in ours!
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Charles Darwin's diary - “ .. March 1st
We arrived early in the morning at Port Louis, the most Eastern point of the Falkland Islands: The first news we received was to our astonishment, that England had taken possession of the Falklands islands & that the Flag was now flying. These islands have been for some time uninhabited, untill the Buenos Ayres Government, a few years since claimed them & sent some colonists. — Our government remonstrated against this, & last month the Clio arrived here with orders to take possession of the place. — A Buenos ayrean man of war was here, at the time, with some fresh colonists. — Both they & the vessel returned to the Rio Plata. — The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses. — The island is abundantly stocked with animals. — there are about 5000 wild oxen, many horses, & pigs. — Wild fowl, rabbits, & fish in the greatest plenty. — Europaean vegetables will grow. — And as there is an abundance of water & good anchorage; it is most surprising that it has not been long ago colonized, in order to afford provisions for Ships going round the Horn. — At present it is only frequented by Whalers, one of which is here now ...”
Original sources Crappy!!
No UN Resolutions since the 1960's? Nothing from the UN since the invasion of 1982? You are clutching at straws Crappy ....... no legal basis for a claim, no bottle to go to the ICJ, nowhere to go .......
The Falkland Islands are British ... get used to it :-)
It was a war that should never have been fought, as British control of the Falklands (known in Argentina by their Spanish name of Las Islas Malvinas) was and remains a part of a shameful history of British colonialism around the world.Located 300 miles from Argentina and some 8,000 miles from Britain, the Falklands have long been the subject of territorial dispute. At the beginning of the 19th century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, occupying them for 40 years up until 1811, when its former colony of Argentina asserted sovereignty. The islands came under British control in 1833, after they were seized by force, and have remained a British territory ever since. The war against the then Argentinean government’s attempt to seize back the islands in 1982 proved a turning point in the fortunes of the nascent and up to then deeply unpopular Tory government, led by Margaret Thatcher. Jingoism swept the country, allowing Thatcher to press ahead with the structural adjustment of the UK economy, which in the process devastated working class communities and delivered a resounding defeat to the trade union movement over the course of a series of hard fought strikes and industrial disputes throughout the early and mid 1980s.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regardless, the British government continues to refuse to negotiate sovereignty of the islands, citing the democratic rights of the 3,000 British citizens who currently inhabit them. It should be noted that the same rights were not granted to the inhabitants of another distant British colony, the island of Diego Garcia in the Indian Ocean, who were forcibly repatriated to Mauritius, 1,000 miles away, to make way for a US airbase in the mid 1960s. The former inhabitants of that island and their dependents won a historic High Court judgement back in 2000 declaring their expulsion illegal. In response, the then Blair government promptly rejected any possibility of them being allowed to return to the island, citing Britain’s treaty with the US handing.
“ ... At the beginning of the 19th century Spain held sovereignty over the islands, ...”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong, ExBrain ... the islands had been British since 1765 at the latest .... we may have popped out but we certainly hadn't given up sovereignty. As we proved in 1833 :-)
Don't worry Red, calm down man :), I can't make any decision. It's all about politics, money, treaties, finances, economy, the usual stuff, you know. You read this in history books, countries' governments change and people's ideas too. Everything is possible Red :)
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It was a war that should never have been fought,” Indeed, but it was....bitter isn't it Xbox, that rash act of yours in 82 blew your chances of getting your hands on the Falklands, probably for ever.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
let us take no more notice of the Argentineans, boys. they are starting to dribble & drool. all their silly arguements were trotted out months(years even)ago. they made no sense then, they make even less now. don't try to wear us down amigos, it won't work. get it through your thick skulls--
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 01)The Falklands have NEVER been yours.
2)The Falklands are NOT yours.
3)The Falklands will NEVER be yours.
4)NO, We will NOT discuss our Sovereignty with you or anyone else.
not much more to say, really. do try to calm down, its bad for your blood pressure.
@Isolde
Nov 16th, 2010 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I could not agree more with all of your points. Let us move on to more mature subjects such as when Argentina is going to repay its massive debts instead of constantly “renegotiating” them, when is Argentina going to provide proper habitations for its people instead of shanty towns, when is Argentina going to get a proper education system to replace the current propaganda system, when will Argentina stop trying to bully its various neighbours, when will Argentina adopt safe farming practices?
All of these are much more relevant topics than their constant obsession with an archipelago that is beyond their reach and intelligence.
#163: What a beautiful example of what “respecting the people's right to choose” really means!
Nov 16th, 2010 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let us see, who caused the massive oil spill in the Gulf? Who went to war to disable “massive destruction weapons” in Iraq that never appeared? Where was the first place where the “mad cow disease” appeared?
Yag,
Nov 16th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) Halliburton, did a shyte job with the cementation
2) Bush, who dragged his poodle blair with him
3)Isnt that what your mother had when she decided to have you?
Is the 60 million strong British bulldog really being wagged by its miniscule Falklands tail- or more precisely a hair on the tail, given that there are only 3,140 Falklanders? In the 21st Century, can a European power hide its colonial claim to the oil resources under the sea bed of South America by sheltering behind the 'rights' of its colonists?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when.
159 Rotted, “we may have popped out”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You sure did!!
The peaceful and exclusive Spanish Occupation.
Between 1767 and 1811 the Spanish Crown exercised effective and pacific possession of Port Louis where the Political and Military Governor permanently resided and controlled the whole of the island group under the central jurisdiction of the Spanish authorities in Buenos Aires. Without any interruptions, twenty Spanish Governors succeeded to office in the Falklands and carried out administrative acts and duties that consist in the exercise of full sovereign rights over the whole of the Falklands, including Saunders Island whilst the British garrison was there during 1771 to 1774. Nobody disputed this authority.
This then is the juridical situation of the islands when Argentina
, after declaring Independence in 1810, began her colonizing efforts of the archipelago. Just 5 days after being installed in Buenos Aires, the first Independent Government of Argentina drew up a resolution referring to administrative acts concerning the islands. On the 30th of May 1810, the Malvinas /Falklands, just as the rest of the River Plate Vice-royalty was integrated, by right of Succession, into the emerging Argentine Republic, which, from the very beginning, exercised acts of sovereignty over the archipelago.
The Malvinas Islands are Argentinian ... get used to it :-)
165 Cadfael ,Gibraltar mate this sites are for you:
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/14/british_offended_bp_obama
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2010/06/14/british_offended_bp_obama
#165
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for the answers. You are now free to assist to the next Gay Pride Parade. Keep talking your usual nonsense, so you can be spotted within the crowd!
“This then is the juridical situation of the islands when Argentina
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0, after declaring Independence in 1810, began her colonizing efforts of the archipelago”
what? Argentina colonizing somewhere is OK then.....fine....what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...it must be OK for Britain to do it too.
:-)
“This then is the juridical situation of the islands when Argentina
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0, after declaring Independence in 1810, began her colonizing efforts of the archipelago. Just 5 days after being installed in Buenos Aires, the first Independent Government of Argentina drew up a resolution referring to administrative acts concerning the islands. On the 30th of May 1810, the Malvinas /Falklands, just as the rest of the River Plate Vice-royalty was integrated, by right of Succession, into the emerging Argentine Republic, which, from the very beginning, exercised acts of sovereignty over the archipelago. ”
Marcos,
1) The declaration of independence was in 1816, not 1810
2)A declaration of independence does not, by itself, establish sovereignty over anything. It must be accompanied by the establishment of effective control over territory and recognition by other states, and is only applicable to the territory over which effective control has been established. Argentina never established effective control over the Falklands. No, passing ordinances in Buenos Aires which were never carried out in the Falklands is not establishing effective control.
3)There was no right of succession. The United Provinces seceded by force, without Spain's consent. See my post #156. If the Falklands were British before 1816, they were still British in 1833, if they were Spanish before 1816, they were still Spanish in 1833.
169 WestisBest , Argentina inherited the islands from Spain, Britain invaded the islands and expelled local population like all around the globe...
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
“whole of the island group under the central jurisdiction of the Spanish authorities in Buenos Aires”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not exactly accurate considering the fact that the Spanish authorities moved to Montevideo before they left altogether. The Falklands were last governed by Spain out of Montevideo, not Bs As. They should really belong to Uruguay, not Argentina. And the Bs As Junta drawing up resolutions etc is absolutely meaningless since the Bs As junta did not control the Falklands either de facto or de jure.
“Argentina inherited the islands from Spain”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina inherited eff all from Spain. It established its independence by force, without Spain's consent. Argentina can no more inherit under these circumstances than you can inherit your Dad's house by hitting him on the head and kicking him out of it.
Lol, you can't inherit something from someone by force. It's a gift.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You want proof of Malvinas Argentinas.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can not get enough words of British officials? Ronald Camp (1.911): “the only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands? I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires, now Argentina. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject”.
Oppinion is often classed as proof in a court of law.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@WestisBest
Nov 16th, 2010 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“what? Argentina colonizing somewhere is OK then.....fine....what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander...it must be OK for Britain to do it too.
:-)”
We don’t need to do that mate UK is cloudy cold, Grey and with bad food.
We just have to encourage Middle East/Asian former colonies whose are doing a pretty good job there.
Haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY54pFpycE
This part is realty amazing Brits want to test for “superior knowledge of English language to Indians prospects students”
Half of white Britain will not pass this test haha you can have a sample just here on this forum.
We donooont have “bad teeeeth”, Istory, toimm, haha sound little Northern England accent for me close to Zethe hoooouse . Don’t you?
May be we should give away some Aaaaargie paaaaasport there instead of invade theeem.
Meet your dangerous brit enemy haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY54pFpycE
haha.
Here free lesson of Argie’s slang for future Brits prospects immigrants to Argie Land.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY54pFpycE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY54pFpycE
Brits No sean Truchos y devulvan las Islas, No se zarpen que somos una maza, repesados y regrosos.
Los che boludos los vamos a cagar a patadas en el orto.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY54pFpycE
: )
Fred, here practicing is good knowledge of our accent, by the way he does veeeery well indeed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epY54pFpycE
Nico capo! Lo del toor jajajaja
Nov 16th, 2010 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“haha sound little Northern England accent for me close to Zethe hoooouse”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 11:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've mentioned a few times in the past that you seem to believe that im from northen England.
I understand that you are quite nuts, but i'll say again that im from London, not northern England.
@ Nico 177
Nov 16th, 2010 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We don’t need to do that mate UK is cloudy cold, Grey and with bad food.”
I wasn't talking about you colonising the UK you tool, anyway a nation who's idea of haute cuisine is a lump of beef has nothing to teach anyone about food.
Regarding the rest of your post:
just a little too crazy Nico...look...you set Xbox off as well.
Grande Nico!!! Very good videos
Nov 17th, 2010 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't know about the british “bad teeeeth”, I know about the food there totally sucks. Get ready for the olympics...bring your own food too.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lots of different, and mostly wrong, opinions about what happened prior to 1833. But of course 1833 resolved it -
Nov 17th, 2010 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Uti possidetis (Latin for ”as you possess”) is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless otherwise provided for by treaty; if such a treaty doesn't include conditions regarding the possession of property and territory taken during the war, then the principle of uti possidetis will prevail. Originating in Roman law, the phrase is derived from the Latin expression uti possidetis, ita possideatis, meaning “as you possessed, you shall possess henceforth”. This principle enables a belligerent party to claim territory that it has acquired by war. The term has historically been used to legally formalize territorial conquests, ...“
” ... In the early 17th century, the term was used by England's James I to state that while he recognized the existence of Spanish authority in those regions of the Western Hemisphere where Spain exercised effective control, he refused to recognize Spanish claims to exclusive possession of all territory west of longitude 46° 37' W under the Treaty of Tordesillas....”
The military action of 1833, and indeed 1982, seem to suffice.
As I've said before 1833 was not the beginning, it was the end :-)
1748. I add here the application presented to King Carlos III of England asking for authorization to the Spanish crown to send a British expedition to the South Sea, as it was known at the time the South Atlantic, and seek Malvinas. Spain denied the requested authorization arguing their inviolable sovereign rights over them. Britain abides by the decision of Spain, in recognition of the legitimate Spanish titles.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0We'd found them in 1695, which makes a bit of a nonsense of your quote. Also the term 'South Sea' is usually used to refer to the South Pacific!
Nov 17th, 2010 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0But as I said .... 1833 ended the matter!
Discovery has to be backed up by the effective occupation of the land. Effective occupation does not consist in simply erecting landmarks or placing Boundary stones or even temporarily installing in the territory. Rather, it was necessary to the necessary measures to inhabit the place and populate it in such a manner to achieve permanence in the territory. By these means, the American, African and Asian Colonies were founded.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0In the log entries made by Davis and Hawkins on their supposed discoveries of the Falklands there are a lot of elements that leads to doubts on the veracity of these discoveries. This was recognized in official British documents of 1946 but was protected under the Secrecy’s Act until 1996. Without profounding in details, Davis simply alleged to have seen several Islands. Hawkins described a land with large, swift rivers, many fires and peopled ( none of these features can be attributed to the archipelago).
But, leaving aside these points, there is another important aspect to take into consideration about these so called “discoveries” made by the Navigators using the George Cross as their National Flag. Neither Davis nor Hawkins had any authority to discover or colonize in name of the British Crown! All acts of adquisitive sovereignty derive from events carried out by competent authorities (please read officials with military rank or Emissaries of the Court) or by individuals with an official mandate.
Originally, the ship “Desire”, under the command of Mr. Davis, was part of an expedition led by the privateer called Richard Cavendish. Davis deserted from the expedition before it entered the Pacific. Therefore, as a deserter, he was not under the protection of, nor had the authorization from, the English government at the time he alleges to have “discovered” the Islands. Hawkins, also acted as a Pirate and navigated as a freelancer and neither both Davis or Hawkins were acting in an official capacity as integrants of the British Nave. In conseq
Found and named in 1695. Officially claimed in 1765. Defended against the Spanish in 1770/71. Popped out 1776 leaving sovereignty intact. Used by British Whalers and Sealers. Gave permission for a settlement to Vernett 1826. Threw out some trespassers 1833. Threw out some more trespassers 1982.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ain't history wonderful :-)
Morecrap - Whoever you quote is misinformed. Obscure historians have no greater opinion than any other self-made 'expert'. Only a court could decide ... for example the ICJ.
Perhaps Argentina should try it ??
Rotted, “Popped out 1776”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0True statement and game over for the brits in the Falklands and welcome Islas Malvinas, Republica Argentina.
” the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'
We didn't let go of sovereignty MoreCrap ..... and we left the acceptable marks and signs to show that we still considered the islands British (much as the Spanish did when they left). Show me the International Law that says a country has to remain physically present to continue its well established claim! You can't of course, because such a law does not exist, nor has it ever.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain colonised large parts of South America, but it did not leave garrisons in every part ... far to difficult to do with a relatively small force.
So we called the garrison back but left the flag flying. And the islands were continually used by British ships.
And of course, Nootka Sound does not apply. If it did then the secret clause would still have permitted the 1833 ejection of your illegal garrison.
Erm Marcos, Argentina did not exist in 1776, Argentina was not granted independence from Spain by agreement so inherited no rights from Spain, Argentina was not party to the Nootka Sound Convention so derived and continues to derive no benefit from it and anyway, and anyway even if Argentina did, Britain retained certain rights according to Nootka, so Spanish title was not unlimited and “adjacent” means adjacent and the Falklands are not adjacent by any definition of the word.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should actually read the Convention instead of parroting what you find in your feverish searches on google for something, anything which sounds like it might support your “cause”.
@Zethee
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sure ZD, sure...
@WestisBest
“anyway a nation who's idea of haute cuisine is a lump of beef has nothing to teach anyone about food.”
This is what you think we have a lot to teach especially about your reality what seem you don’t get it..
@Marcos Alejandro
You will need to bring your own food and also yours Boobies there from here or pass for Sweden first because the streets of UK doesn’t reflect the TV Shows. haha
And here a little sample to show the fantasyland in where Brits lives.
Brits hotties
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o Brits vs Americans Aguilera ??? Hispanic Stock haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
Ok fine
Argies hotties http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
Ok fine.
Reality Normal Girls on the streets
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o Swedish club Vs English Aahhhhhuoch! Call the cops
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o nice face to be fair the fatty only need a proper diet not based on Brit food. haha
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o well something we can do.
Sweeden normal day today street
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
Wow those are nice : ) we need a Swedish girl invasion and get rid of the ugly Brits. Imagine women with the face or Prince Charles. haha
Argies normal day today girls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UpUZua2iu7o
Where do you want to go to eat, dance or to be invaded for tonight?
Haha hahaaaha
The Brits live a fantasy and want to explain us when we start to exist.
The youngster country in Europe that cannot trace its own roots. We are descendents of the Mapuches, Tobas and Guaranys mate 1000 of years before you exist. And they are Argies too case close
“This is what you think we have a lot to teach especially about your reality what seem you don’t get it..”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0that really doesn't make any sense NicoDim.
I really couldn't care less about your British 'fantasy land' thoery, I live in the Falkland Islands under the Union Jack mate, suits me just fine so won't be going anywhere in a hurry neither.
:-)
“We are descendents of the Mapuches, Tobas and Guaranys mate 1000 of years before you exist. And they are Argies too case close”
Did they have a choice? Nooooo...that's right you conveniently forget your colonial roots don't you, of course there's still a bit of native blood in Argentina, all that pillaging and rape your Spanish colonial ancestors indulged in would have born fruit.
@WestisBest
Nov 17th, 2010 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“of course there's still a bit of native blood in Argentina?”
They are currently 250.000
And the Spanish what they have to do here?
Don’t think we your expat colonial mind.
We kill them and we sent the remain stock back to where they belong.
We don’t fear of UK but you fear of Us. Do you understand the difference?
The Brits from UK will have to dominate Us and that never happened and will never happen and that will be the only way you will be safe with your dream of a little British kingdom down here.
Do you understand now how poor is your situation with your Union Jack?
You are so little to be so arrogant mate so little. It is part of your colonial indoctrination?
If one day we invade you the stupid Brits that give those ideas to you when hear the first shoot will run away to hide under the first stone.
At least he is water proof I mean bullet proof like someone here that can stop a 7.62x51 at 2700Ft/s with their armor I would check if titanium its inside or ceramic first just in case.
Brits soldiers preparing for war
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c1WK26NHx0o
Seems NicebutDIM has lost it ..... comes from too much master######
Nov 17th, 2010 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But what can you expect from a juvenile race :-)
193 Nicodin
Nov 17th, 2010 - 03:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You are so little to be so arrogant mate so little. It is part of your colonial indoctrination?
If one day we invade you the stupid Brits that give those ideas to you when hear the first shoot will run away to hide under the first stone.”
Hmmmm, funny that, but a jumped up General from Buenos Aires thought the same thing. Didn't work out to well for him in 1982 did it!
190 J.A. Roberts “and “adjacent” means adjacent and the Falklands are not adjacent by any definition of the word”.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's a new one, another non-sense lie by the Brits. The islands are not in South America(Argentina)? Where are they? In Africa??
Adjacent mean being in close proximity.
Ohhhhhh.....Check out NicoDin, the great internet warrior.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We don’t fear of UK but you fear of Us. Do you understand the difference?”
you 'feared of' the UK in 82 though didn't you boy, eh? and you reckon I 'fear of' you do you? well bring in on you slimy little worm, bring it on if you think you're bloody hard enough, you and all your little surrender monkey pals.
You won't of course, you'll just go crying to the mercopress editor like your little girlfriend Xbarilox does.
“@Zethee
Nov 17th, 2010 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sure ZD, sure...”
Ok...I'm not sure why i would have a reason for lying about living in london.
But who am i to try and understand the mind of a nut case.
“We don’t fear of UK but you fear of Us”
This island and problem with the UK is a national thing for Argentina, It's not here. You just aren't that important.
“190 J.A. Roberts “and “adjacent” means adjacent and the Falklands are not adjacent by any definition of the word”.”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“That's a new one, another nonsense lie by the Brits.”
No, its an old one. The view of the ICJ since 1968
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/51/5535.pdf
41. As regards the notion of proximity, the idea of absolute proximity
is certainly not implied by the rather vague and general terminology
employed in the literature of the subject, and in most State proclamations and international conventions and other instruments-terms such as “near”, “close to its shores”, “off its coast”, “opposite”, “in front of the coast”, “in the vicinity of”, “neighbouring the coast”, “adjacent to”, “contiguous”, etc.,-all of them terms of a somewhat imprecise character which, although they convey a reasonably clear general idea, are capable of a considerable fluidity of meaning. To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms, namely “adjacent to”, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as “adjacent” to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other. This would be even truer of localities where, physically, the continental shelf begins to merge with the ocean depths. Equally, a point inshore situated near the meeting place of the coasts of two States can often properly be said to be adjacent to both coasts, even though it may be fractionally closer to the one than the other. Indeed, local geographical configuration may sometimes cause it to have a closer physical connection with the coast to which it is not in fact closest.
”The islands are not in South America(Argentina)? Where are they? In Africa??“
Maybe in South America, but definitely not in Argentina
”Adjacent mean being in close proximity.”
Right. 460km is close proximity
Yes, the Argie proximity Conundrum
Nov 17th, 2010 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Isla Martín García is an Argentine island off the Río de la Plata coast of Uruguay. The enclave island is within the boundaries of Uruguayan waters
There's a few here under the incorrect assertion that Britain lost Sovereignty between 1776 and 1833, when what happened is Spain and Britain formed an agreement over Sovereignty after 1771 whereby both countries retained their claims, and continued to occupy the islands. Indeed Spain made reparations to British Possessions on the Islands following the agreement and formally apologised for their aggression.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The agreement included a secret clause which maintained that if Spain were to remain on the islands then the situation would continue, but if Spain ever left the Islands, and a third party State were to subsequently establish themselves on the Islands that the British would gain exclusive Sovereignty of the territory.
The Clause, being secret, was between Britain and Spain, after Spain left the Islands in 1811 Britain was just waiting for some unsuspecting Third Party to gift them Sovereignty under the Clause.
Argentina rather overstepped the mark in 1832, and in 1833 Britain invoked its Sovereignty over the Islands.
Its no good Argentines coming in here all johnny come lately and saying they inherited the Islands from Spain, since Spain had already ceded the Islands to Britain via the Secret Clause and ignorant actions of Argentina, or United Provinces by the very act of trying it on.
So don't go looking to Spain for any help over this, they made the agreement with Britain long before the UP or Argentina ever existed.
Indeed, any subsequent argument over Sovereignty was ended in 1850 with the Convention of Settlement, which stopped the annual practice of moaning about it in the Argentine Government.
The present manufactured claim of Argentina is political indoctrination, by a greedy country hoping to steal all the resources of the Islands; Britain defends the right of the Islanders to Self-determination under Human Rights, and as a modern democracy will accept whatever the Islanders wish to do regarding Sovereignty of the Islands, no-one else matters.
“1748. I add here the application presented to King Carlos III of England asking for authorization to the Spanish crown to send a British expedition to the South Sea, as it was known at the time the South Atlantic, and seek Malvinas. Spain denied the requested authorization arguing their inviolable sovereign rights over them. Britain abides by the decision of Spain, in recognition of the legitimate Spanish titles.”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense 1833,
Utter bollocks. George II's response was as follows:
“His Majesty could in no respect agree to the reasoning of the Spanish ministry as to his right to send out ships for the discovery of the unknown an settled parts of the world, as this was a right indubitably open to all; yet, as his Britannic Majesty was desirous of showing his Catholic Majesty his great complacency in matters where the rights and advantages of his own subjects were not immediately and intimately concerned, he had consented to lay aside for the present every scheme that might possibly give umbrage to the court of Madrid”
199 dab14763 , “Maybe in South America”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think this statement says it all. Malvinas is in South Ameica and belong to Argentina not UK, in Europe and 8000 miles away.
What, the Falklands are in South America and therefore belong to Argentina? Like Chile, and Uruguay, I suppose. Showing your true neocolonialist colours there Marcos. Not everything in South America belongs to you. The Falklands belongs to Falkland Islanders, and the UK protects us from you. Simple.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Monty69,Please read your own bloody history.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes monty, because it's absolutely relevant to what you just said.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos, please read your own bloody history.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ dab (Utter bollocks) That mouth! An English author, Miller History of the reign of George III: the representation made in Anson voyage had such effect upon the statesmen of the time, that, in 1748, some sloops were fitted out for the fuller knowledge of Pepys and falklands islands, and further discoveries in the South Sea. This expedition, though, perhaps, designed to be secret , was not long concealed from Wall, the spanish ambassadour, who so vehemently opposed it, and so strongly maintained the right of the spaniards to the exclusive dominion of the South sea, that the english ministry relinquished part of the their original design, and declared, that the examination of those two islands was the utmost that their order should comprise.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense, your post doesn't prove Britain recognised Spanish sovereignty in the area, in fact what I posted, the actual response of George II (not III), proves that it didn't. Britain never accepted exclusive Spanish dominion of the South Seas.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do not you think so, many historians and British officials who studied the subject.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Either way what happened 200 years ago does not forfeit the islanders Human Rights.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Zethee Hello, of course not, just tell us to seek the best for everyone. Let's be smart.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Do not you think so, many historians and British officials who studied the subject.”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What historians and officials say does not matter. What matters is what Britain did at the time. And there is nothing in what Britain did to suggest it accepted exclusive Spanish dominion of the South Seas.
@ dab “What historians and officials say does not matter” Sure, there are none so blind as those who will not see.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Zethee Hello, of course not, just tell us to seek the best for everyone. Let's be smart.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The best for everyone? Or the best for Argentina?
We only care about the islanders and what they want, we don't care about what Argentina wants. If the islanders should one day wish to join Argentina, they would be free to do so. Likewise if they wished to go independant they would also be free too.
Perhaps Argentina should do the humane thing and be nice to the islanders? It's the only option you have.
I see fine Malvi. The evidence is there for anyone to see.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@Zethee, no, the best for everyone. We need to talk face to face, without fear. Dab, ever have to find a solution.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why seek a solution? There is no real problem after all. The status quo works just fine :-)
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly, any changes in the status quo would only serve to the disatisfaction of us and the islanders, while only making Argentina happy.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0The status quo is fine for us.
Don't go down this route, Mal. I can feel a 'Treaty of Tordesillas' conversation coming on, and I don't think any of us wants to discuss that particular piece of Papal bull.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0The status quo works just fine ....for a few bussinesman that only care about their own broken pockets and nothing else.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Red Do not say the same thing numerous UN resolutions and the international community
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0What UN Resolutions? (Try and find something after 1982) What International Community? The game of ping-pong that plays out every year in the C-24, which is replayed without result at the 4th Committee ..... ?? And you think that counts?
Nov 18th, 2010 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody cares .. all you get is lip service.
The status quo ain't perfect, but it'll do. The islanders are living their lives and the British are going to make sure that they continue to do so.
So the status quo works just fine.
The status quo will end sooner than you think.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 02:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yeah .... right :-)
Nov 18th, 2010 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that a threat Marcos? You personally are going to change the status quo? Your country is actually going to do something? I think not, just you making an empty threat, and like your Government, you will do nothing, and cry about it.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wireless, No is not a treat is a reality.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Your country is actually going to do something?”
Yes, please read this article from the islands:
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5849&source=3
“Elements of the UK press are focusing on a war that won't exist, allowing economic, political and diplomatic pressure from Argentina to wreak havoc on Falklands' businesses and relations with other nations in the area to go unreported and ignored. Many Islanders feel that those elements of the UK press pushing for a war are doing their readership a disservice by keeping them from knowing what really is happening in the South Atlantic.”
@WestisBest
Nov 18th, 2010 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0We don’t fear UK mate.
Hey argies here someone is afraid of the Pomies?
You call us warriors on Internet?
Well my friend you are 3k in the Island 1000 are soldiers so there are 2000 stock of Islanders.
You can form a force of 1000 or 1500 and ask the armament to UK and fight along against Us.
Who is the Internet warrior mate?
You want to be a nation and cannot defend yourself?
Are you cowards or the Birits so stupid to die for you?
Are kidding me mate?
@Zethe
“We only care about the islanders and what they want, we don't care about what Argentina wants”
Well I hope you are ready to shed your blood for a bunch of Scot/Welsh/Chilean stock with heads as rock mate.
Because you and your lads will fight down here and not them.
If you are so stupid ok keep going.
But the questions are.. with what? And Mr. Camerum will risk UK in the state its is now to end up like Congo for an imperialist campaign?
Your nation are losing billions of $$$ for its arrogant stupidity UK attitude.
I know you are in the shit right now and you need something to feel proud of, but another war will not make you things better, especially if you loose it.
Should I have to name other examples of your stupidity? Ok, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.
UK presence in the south it’s very unpopular in Latin America from Rio Grande to Usuahia.
See how little UK exports to Us as a whole compare with friendly countries like Germany, Japan, etc.
You don’t exist, millions of jobs lost and revenue in exports just to keep a tinny island that cost $$ to UK taxpayers.
And what do you get in return? Oil, haaha do you really think that you will can move a barrel of oil without our permit?
And here your answer of people with their feet on earth.
Time to get real Zethe.
The Falklands – time to get real
http://www.expressandstar.com/blogs/2010/11/16/the-falklands-%E2%80%93-time-to-get-real/
: )
Dim ... you are full of sh*te. No sense, no reason.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is a nobody on the world stage and has an expenditure on its military slightly above that of Surinam! You are good for a laugh ... nothing else :-)
So when the Falkland Islands builds its own Oil Terminals, and International Shipping in the form of Oil Tankers are loading the Oil & Gas, what is Argentina going to do about it? Sink the International Shipping? Invade the Islands and destroy the Oil Terminals? The Oil won't be leaving in barrels, it will be leaving in the largest ships in the World, without any notice of fake permits issued by Argentina, and you'll be watching green with envy.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 07:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0That will be the only reality of the situation.
@Redhoyt & Wireless
Nov 18th, 2010 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Keep dreaming anyway I have more bad news for you mate.
Brits white stock will be a minority in the next 5 decades what makes you a disappearing ethnic group.
http://www.expressandstar.com/uk/uk-news/2010/11/18/white-britons-a-minority-by-2066/
I think we just have to only wait for your complete collapse.
Welcome to the 3er world Bananas ready in the next room.
: )
Brits white stock will be a minority in the next 5 decades what makes you a disappearing ethnic group.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0We will just have to have more wars to kill them off,an Argie idea that seemed to work
Heavy casualties caused by the constant civil wars and foreign wars: Blacks formed a disproportionate part of the Argentine army in the long and bloody War of Paraguay (1865–1870), in which the loss of lives on both sides were high. The official historiography maintains that this resulted in the disappearance of the black population, while the genocide claims contend that the disproportionate recruitment was intentional.[8]
@Stiky
Nov 18th, 2010 - 08:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is just folk never was in Argie land a large population of blacks.
Some assumed that from paints of some blacks in pictures like a little boy playing a drum.
The looses of life were most suffered by Paraguayan and Brazilians that by the way they (Brazilians) were blacks.
There is a US NGO Africa for I don't remember the name claiming that in Argentina are 2 m blacks. Well they would be well hidden because that amount will quite spotty in Argentina.
Another Folk its indigenus blood on Argies stock (left wind study) and make a delirious theorema to arrive to this conclusion by tanking samples in key province where most are from abo stock with little pop to justify the theory. Even though with this sample the study reveals that 50% of sample subject revealed DNA that match Aborigine blood.
The darkies you see on the street here most of them come from countries in Europe were people has that phenotype. like Southern Italy, Spain, etc. So being European its not=100% white blue eyes and 6 feet tall asn you can see in Britain I saw many darkies Brit stock like Alistair Darling, Camerum, etc.
See by yourself and in UK anyone get down 3 tones because the sun don't exist imagine Alistair in Formosa province (arg) with 40 C degrees every day. Yeap you have another black to send to Paraguay I guess.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/video/2010/mar/30/tv-debate-ask-the-chancellors
Just foolish stories if you want to trace black go to Africa, Uki, Eu, US.
You ave a good sample there mate.
I rest my case Nicotine,you have no blacks in Argentina because they died fighting your wars,Argies were cowards then as now :-)
Nov 18th, 2010 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@stick up your junta
Nov 18th, 2010 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Sir new rules apply by now on.
After complains about my age and my discovery that some people in this forum are over 60 year old and with some moral hazard. I desire to only answer questions what are addressed to me in a respectful way with manners and some relevant content to start with.
Unfortunately your question doesn’t qualify into such category.
I hope you will be successful in your research to hunt any Argie unaware about you and that you improve your troll techniques.
Kind regards little bastard haha.
Nico
Wow Nico, good to see you've found another useful article from the publication that gave us the 'Dudley Dorito' UFO story.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0@228
Jsut words Nico, words are cheap. Here's some reality for you, we're in the Falklands mate, giving you the finger, if you think you can take military action to do something about that then go for it, give it a try, if we were afraid of you we wouldn't be here would we?
By your and your compadres arguements you really should take some action shouldn't you? You say that it's a fact that 'Malvinas are Argentine' right? Well then...I'm here mate, in your precious 'Malvinas', I'm not an Argentine citizen, I have no visa from Argentine immigration authorities, I earn a decent wage but pay no taxes to the Argentinian government, what're you going to do about it eh? RG chickenshit.
Red, Wanted UN resolutions after 1982? What UN Resolutions? (Try and find something after 1982)UN General Assembly
Nov 18th, 2010 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Resolution 38/12 November 16, 1983
resolution 39 / 6 1 November 1984
Resolution 40/21 November 27, 1985
Resolution 42/19 November 17, 1987
Decolonization Committee
A / AC. 109 / 756 1 September 1983
A / AC. 109/793 21 August 1984
A / AC. 109/842 9 August 1985
A / AC. 109/885 14 August 1986
more ... seek.
38/12 a request to start negotiations, what after what they did in 1982?
Nov 18th, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 039/61 a further request, not gonna happen
40/21 same request, no way
42/19 yawn, boring
C24? who are they and what power do they have over the matter? Answers on a Postage Stamp please.
more excuses, you do not forget 1833
Nov 18th, 2010 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wireless, Argentina assumes that asking both sides to resolve the situation automaticly means giving Argentina full controll of the islands.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Decolonization Committee was set up to promote Self Determination, not colonize islands.
Hello Zethee, mmm wrong, the right to self-determination is a right recognized by the international community in favor of people under a colonial power. Therefore can not be invoked as a right of those who ultimately were imposed by the metrópolis or who would be the representatives of the colonial power.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0@240 Zethee, yes I've been following Falkland Islands History for a number of years, I'm aware of what the C24 represents, including all its 'Draft Resolutions' being agreed without a vote, and the fact that Argentina is trying to use a Decolinisation Committee as a platform for annexation, yet the C24 does not wield any power to accomplish this. Basically they are toothless and have no power, yet Malvinense1833 feels that the C24 carries weight, I wanted him to explain, and felt he could fit the lot on the back of a Postage Stamp.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unfortunately the question went over his head, probably due to indoctrination.
@239 Malvin, star of the Hitchhikers Guide, yes, 1833 that was the date that Britain completed its entitlement under the 1771 Anglo-Spanish Sovereignty Agreement & 1790 Nootka Sound Convention, under the Secret Article, backed up by its claim on Sovereignty of 1765 and maintained through convention of the times by leaving marks on the Territory. What of it? All we did was request a Usurper Garrison from the United Provinces to vacate our Sovereign Land, and they complied with that request without a shot being fired or a sword drawn from its scabbard, is that retreat important to you in some way?
You appear to have a great affinity with retreat and defeat, we saw this more recently in 1982, although I doubt you would be willing to feel that same cold steel or hot lead either today or tomorrow, you'd be too occupied running away after shitting in a Post Office.
@242 Wireless What right? Davies, Hawkins? 1771. The Anglo-Spanish incident last year is released when Frederick Lord North expressed confidence the Spanish ambassador, French, that ”he could not speak ministerial Egmont abandonment after a brief return of the same, but if the ambassador promised that this conversation would not be made public, I would say confidently that (the British) did not want to keep the island (Trinidad) that are worth nothing and that if Spain was the satisfaction demanded by the Crown, evacuated safely. ”
Nov 19th, 2010 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0With this promise, the Prince of Masserano negotiated an agreement in Spain and Great Britain that restores the fort and facilities of Port Egmont on Gran Malvina to the British. Spanish sovereignty over the archipelago is expressly protected in full. Spain continued to rule the islands from Soledad, without question by the British Crown.
Lord North made no such statement! Show me it ... and I mean the source, not in a history book. A rumour spread by the spanish to save face as detailed in Palmerston's letter to Moreno in 1834. Marvin, you are still using the school text books :-)
Nov 19th, 2010 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0C-24 Resolutions are not UN Resolutions which require the agreement of the General assembly and even then are not enforceable. The Fourth Committee reviews the work of the C-24 and, so far, ignores its proposed Resolutions regarding the Falkland islands. Try again Marvin :-)
“Hello Zethee, mmm wrong, the right to self-determination is a right recognized by the international community in favor of people under a colonial power. Therefore can not be invoked as a right of those who ultimately were imposed by the metrópolis or who would be the representatives of the colonial power.”
Nov 19th, 2010 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should read what self deternination really means? because for some reason every argentine seems to misunderstand it greatly.
It is not, and never was an a word used to describe any perticular person. It's the right to choose your own government. In agentina when you vote that is your personal right to self determination.
”The right of nations to self-determination (German: Selbstbestimmungsrecht der Völker), or in short form self-determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely decide on their sovereignty and international political status without external compulsion or outside interference”
In it's self it has nothing to do with colonys. Perhaps your nations needs to read more about internation laws before accusing others of breaking them.
“ ... Spanish sovereignty over the archipelago is expressly protected in full....”
Nov 19th, 2010 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is clearly refuted both in Palmerston's letter of 1834 and the Admiralty instructions to the officer returning to the Falkland Islands in 1771. The source is not British as no such record exists. The author must be relying on spanish records which are immediately suspect as Spain had lost face and was seeking to 'muddy the waters'.
Written evidence is required, and there appears to be none. Without direct evidence of any 'secret' agreement any court must hold that there was none!
Not that it really matters of course, 1833 resolved the doubt :-)
Marvin does trot out that unsubstantiated nonsense every time the Anglo-Spanish Sovereignty Agreement of 1771 is mentioned, it is a Malvinist ploy to continue to muddy the waters, but every time they do it you only have to ask where the original documentary evidence is to prove it.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0If Spain were so sure that such documentation exists, documentation that would obviously be so important for Spain to keep for posterity, it would surely make it available to Argentina and the rest of us, to prove the matter.
Argentina should formerly ask Spain if it can use such a document, if it exists, to somehow prove its 'claim', although quite how such a document can substantiate that violent unilateral Independence is actually peaceful multilateral Succession under the conventions of the time appears to be a severe handicap.
Certainly the original Secret Article within the Nootka Sound Convention of 1790, again between Britain and Spain, is available for inspection by anyone, so why is any other original secret agreement, claimed by Argentina, relating to the Anglo-Spanish Sovereignty Agreement of 1771 so far unavailable from Spanish or Latin American sources? It doesn't exist, and was never agreed is the answer.
Prove us wrong Marvin.
“241 Malvinense 1833
Nov 19th, 2010 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hello Zethee, mmm wrong, the right to self-determination is a right recognized by the international community in favor of people under a colonial power. Therefore can not be invoked as a right of those who ultimately were imposed by the metrópolis or who would be the representatives of the colonial power.”
Falkland islanders were not imposed and the UN has never made a distinction between indigenous and settler communities.
”245 Zethee (#)
It is not, and never was an a word used to describe any perticular person. It's the right to choose your own government. In agentina when you vote that is your personal right to self determination.”
The right to choose your government is internal self determination. The right to choose the status of your countey: independence, integration, free association, or some other arrangement is external self determination
Either way, it's a human right.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All humans are obligated to have human rights.
Hi all, i can not write everything here, and my English is bad.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0But if you are interested in the topic, I mention these books, study, compare and draw your conclusions.
Investigate the other versions.
The Struggle for the Falklands Islands, author Julius Goebel (american)
Les Iles Malouines (in english, french, spanish) author Paul Groussacc (french) El problema de las Islas Malvinas, author Camilo Barcia Trelles (spanish) Una tierra argentina las islas Malvinas, author Ricardo Caillet Bois (argentine), The Falklands islands as an International Problem, author Peter J. Beck (british)
Books just reflect one individual's opinion .... an individual who expects to make money from the sale of the book of course.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Research requires original sources and material which should be properly referenced by any author. A failure to identify such sources renders the book, and indeed the opinion, worthless!
One of the advantages of a properly referenced work, such as
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
is that it is possible to pursue the original sources allowing the reader to consider the author's opinion. Any work that claims to be 'informed' without identifying where the information comes from is a waste of paper!
The ICJ woul;d be looking to lawyers and not historians, because lawyers understand the use of 'evidence' and the 'weight' that such evidence has in arguing an historical point. A claim, unsupported by evidence (documentary, real, etc) is unlikely to impress a panel of judges.
If you want to win an argument, then you must produce the supporting evidence :-)
I do not want to win any argument, I just want to know the other version.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Books just reflect one individual's opinion. I disagree, historians, researchers, draw from many sources. For example files around the world, where you can find many documents.
sources: examples, other books, archives, museums, Public Records Office, London, London British Library, National Library, Buenos Aires,
newspapers including The Times 1833 etc, etc., historians gather evidence supporting their work, also want more evidence that the words of British: They stole the Falklands and we must return them, “says the British Captain Edmund Carlisle.
Interview with Edmund Carlisle: In his mansion in Wales, the British military which sparked fierce controversy in London to Buenos Aires implications spoke in exclusive PROFILE, and told him to detail his proposal. Blasted Tony Blair congratulated President Kirchner, who wants to know, for holding the Argentine claim with ”dignity.“
”Britain stole the Falklands to Argentina in the 1830 and should be returned,“ he urged in an exclusive interview with the England captain Edmund PROFILE Philip Carlisle, who earlier this month caused an uproar in London to publish a letter in The conservative daily The Times, calling for the return of the Falkland and rebounded this week in Buenos Aires. ”It is time that the British government (the Prime Minister Tony Blair) implements this request for the return of the Falkland Islands. London has not done anything so far and it is time to begin moving, ”said retired Captain, 84.
From his mansion in Llanigon XVI century, the Welsh county of Powys, Carlisle exclusively revealed to be published in the coming days, a book entitled The dishonorable War: The Falklands, 1982 (dishonorable War: Falklands, 1982), openly claim that Britain return the Malvinas to Argentina. ”In my book I call on London to return what he stole. Because it is the opinion of the world in general and because we have reached a point in history when
Mere opinions! If an opinion is to be taken seriously then the means by which it was formed should be available for consideration by others.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Scientists have many opinions/theories which only gain support either by repeatable experimentation or by peer review. The same must be true of historians. If they come to a conclusion based on mutiple sources then they must reveal those sources in order that others can check to see if they also come to the same conclusion. Unreferenced works do not allow such review and are easily dismissible as 'mere opinion' and not 'informed opinion'
People with books to sell only have 'mere opinions' unless they use rigorous academic methods including details of their source material.
Anything other is just verbal carbage!
But mister! I can not take the papers to your house!!!
Nov 20th, 2010 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you look at some books, is the biblografía, appendage, etc., Where there report found the documentation to another person or researcher can access it.
For example:
In the Foreign Office: Law Officers reports. Argentine 1825-1850
Archivo General de la Nación, Montevideo.
Archives of Colonies, Paris, etc. Historians use a rigorous scientific method, do not think they are mere opinions.
“ ... Carlisle's family have had a long association with Argentina since his great-grandfather established a merchant house, Carlisle's Ltd in Buenos Aires in 1830 and they traded in South America until his father closed the business in 1960 when the great Lancashire cotton trade virtually came to an end. His cousin, Bruce Carlisle was managing director of Brooke Bond Liebigs Co. Ltd in Buenos Aires.....”
Nov 20th, 2010 - 04:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly an independent source, our Captain, but an interesting eccentric - http://www.google.co.uk/#hl=en&source=hp&biw=1021&bih=671&q=Captain+Edmund+Carlisle&btnG=Google+Search&rlz=1R2ADFA_enTH405&aq=f&aqi=&aql=&oq=&gs_rfai=&pbx=1&fp=f1f3f29e80c842e4
I can check the sources if I know where they are! As above.
You quote, then you reference .... easy.
I personally am limited to what's on-line, but others can check the National Archives.
But where there is no reference, then it is mere opinion !
Lord West and Sir John Nott, are senile, have nostalgia for the empire. But they know that Argentina is brave and does not let overwhelm England.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.google.com.ar/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aes-ES%3Aofficial&channel=s&hl=es&source=hp&q=batalla+de+obligado&meta=&btnG=Buscar+con+Google
“ ... Argentina is brave ....”
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Really? You have evidence of this ??
If Argentina was brave it would take its spurious claims to the ICJ ...... but will it :-)
ICJ, way to go
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Ant.
Nov 25th, 2010 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0So brave it took you 700 marines with naval, armour and air support to overwhelm 88 marines and Islanders.
So brave it took you 120 marines and 1 frigate to overwhelm 22 marines in South Georgia.
Bravest of the brave I bow down to you!
“So brave it took you 120 marines and 1 frigate to overwhelm 22 marines in South Georgia.”
Nov 25th, 2010 - 07:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And almost lost the frigate, lmao.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!