MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Second oil rig to join Falklands’ oil exploration round next year
A second oil rig is scheduled to begin exploratory drilling of two wells in Falkland Islands waters in a year’s time following a letter of intent signed by Borders & Southern Petroleum with Ocean Rig UDW this week in Houston. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesWell Think......no smart comments for this article then?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0That economic blockade is really puting company's off .... it's a huge worry :-)
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0British believe that they can break the law and get away indefenetly.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos; which law? Or have you just committed libel? I suppose we will have to see what the ICJ says after Argentina refers the matter for adjudication. I won't hold my breath.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have three things to say…..
Nov 12th, 2010 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Letter of Intent…
2) 4th Q 2011….
3) Freaking ugly platform :-)
Think
Nov 12th, 2010 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Response to 3 - you don't look atbthe mantlepiece when you are poking the fire!
Well......
Nov 12th, 2010 - 07:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0I needed a 3th punchline and the RNS didn't provide one......
Basic “Thatcheristic Rethorical Trickery for Dummies” you know.......
What law Marcos?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0What law Marco? Since Argentine law doesn't actually apply to the Falklands, its very hard to see which law has been broken, other than ones conjured up in the Metaphysical sense, which is were a majority of Argie ideas on the Falklands reside.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0But by all means continue with this fantasy that the UK and the FIG are breaking non existant laws, it only makes you look more stupid with each passing post :)
British believe that they can break the law and get away indefenetly
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0And the Argies play by the Rules?
atfa.org/files/ATFA_MembrshpWSJ_8revFINAL.pdf
@5
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 01. letter of intent: yes, that's the stage they're at, it's called honest reporting think.
2. 4th Q 2011: well what can you say, that's their intention, see above.
3. Freaking ugly platform: as opposed to all those beutiful platforms out there.... ;-)
Marcos Alejandro (#)
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0British believe that they can break the law and get away indefinitely
Hey we are only armatures at breaking international law , and we are learning very fast from the experts ARGENTINA
Long live the British Falklands
What law Marcos?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0What about the International Maritime Law which allows free passage to any peaceful vessel? Argentina is breaking that their special Decree? What about the sacred UN Resolutions of 1964 that Argentina defied by invading the Falkland Islands? I can go on and on Marcos of all the laws Argentina has broken concerning the Falkland Islands.
Your combined logic and facts can't break there indoctrination, it's too strong.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you mean “their” Zethee. Sorry to be a pedant.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 12:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You could probably find thousands of similar mistakes mate, dyslexic.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And you'll be impolitely sent home, titan.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0International law. Now I see why they have this law in Britain : “Trespassing on someone else's land is legal”
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“International law. Now I see why they have this law in Britain : “Trespassing on someone else's land is legal””
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm pretty sure that the islands fly the union jack.
Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ofcourse, if i wrote something simular. The thread would be flooded with Argentine tears and complaints about warmongering.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A refurbished Phantom...cool, restoring antique aircraft is a nice hobby TIT, well done. Maybe you work in a museum eh?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0They all work in a Museum, it's called 'Argentina'.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Priceless Wireless!
Nov 12th, 2010 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Aye good one Wireless, but don't forget now to be very afraid of TIT, he's going to retake the Falklands in a few months you know, he'll torture us into speaking spanish then shoot us all!
Nov 12th, 2010 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-O
What a shame I got on too late to find out what TIT was saying. Five removals on one thread. Is that a record?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I got on too late to find out what TIT was saying
Nov 12th, 2010 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talking bollocks in Spanish
What a shame that editors at Mercopress are removing comments not only those written in Spanish, but also those saying things he doesn't like? President Mujica talking about freedom of speech is likely to be considered a joker.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 08:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0International Law? What specific piece of International Law are you referring to Marcos? Or are you going to continue to hide behind ambiguity?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great, we officially have a TIT on the forum! Looks like he has made a valuable contribution and is a great ambassador for his country.
Nov 12th, 2010 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos - As you didn't have a valid answer you now claim the UK is trespassing. an you diret me to the international law that indicates that the UK is trespassing. I suppose this is the law you will convist the UK of breaking when you refer the matter to the ICJ. Oh but wait your spineless leadership have point blank ruled out taking the matter to the ICJ. Why?
Now perhaps if the Falkland Islands decide to buid a pulp mill in Stanley then you may wish to take the matter further. But a lack of trees is likley to be a problem. Better stick to fishing, farming and drilling in that case.
Ah of course Marcos, international law! And which law would this be? I'm yet to see any international law which specifically Prohibits drilling in the Falklands! Would this be the mysterious “International law” thats conjured up everytime Argentina doesn't like something?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UN Ambassador: “Madame Presidente, the Breetish Squatter Kelper peeg dogs in our beautiful Las Malvinas have made record profits in their oil explotation”
Christina: “Queeck Alberto tell the world the Peeg Dogs have violated the international law which prevents the Squatter Kelpers from making more money than the glorious Patria”
......and so on and so forth
“What a shame that editors at Mercopress are removing comments not only those written in S”panish, but also those saying things he doesn't like?”
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If your friends choose to obey the rules, they might not have there posts deleted.
But sadly when do Argentina ever obey the rules, unless they make them ?
Nov 12th, 2010 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 035 Rhaurie “Ah of course Marcos, international law!”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0What do you know about law you warmonger bloody thief! Wasn't UK the one who invade Irak based in a big lie? Not to mention about that criminal illegal action, like many others, destroy the country and caused the lives of tens of thousands of innocents civilians.
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?
Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when.
Malvinas Argentinas.
MoreCrap - “ ... 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 13th, 2010 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Errr - yes!
“ ... Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when....”
Errr ..... no!
Errr....or!
Nov 13th, 2010 - 03:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Wasn't UK the one who invade Irak based in a big lie?”
Nov 13th, 2010 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wont disagree here. It was wrong for us to go to iraq.
It was undemocratic and wrong in every way.
And i wont lie, in it's history we've been wrong in a lot of things.
The islands for instance, we are going to provide human rights for.
Marco. Instead of deflecting attention by raising the Iraq invasion (which I did not agree with) then get back to indicating which International law says that the Falklands are Argentine. You can't can you?
Nov 13th, 2010 - 07:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@typhoon 30
Nov 13th, 2010 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you want to see the quality of TIT's posts some of them are still on this thread:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/11/10/argentine-gay-community-campaigning-for-a-gender-identity-law
TITAN is not having much luck, is he/she/it?
Nov 13th, 2010 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0From the tone of TIT's posts I'm pretty sure it's a bloke, anyway if he posted in English then his posts would stay.....actually some of the content might well have got them deleted anyway, promising to torture and shoot your interlocutor could be considered to be going a bit too far.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Titan, the Terrifying Terrorist:
Nov 13th, 2010 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XhVpoRaTdj0
@43 West. Not anymore. Seems that if one complains about one of TIT's posts, the editor/moderator removes the lot.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah yes they caught up with him, alas.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@46 PMSL! :-)
I quoted them the rules, but they all just got moody.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing wrong with being Moody as long as your first name is Sam. Keep drilling boys.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still waiting for Marco to direct me to the International Law that says we are trespassing.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8118467/UKs-total-debt-forecast-to-hit-10-trillion-by-2015.html
Nov 13th, 2010 - 11:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8118467/UKs-total-debt-forecast-to-hit-10-trillion-by-2015.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/8118467/UKs-total-debt-forecast-to-hit-10-trillion-by-2015.html
Wow, they just can't afford it!
Juanita Brock is an American living in the Falkland Islands. She most likely has Falkland Island status. It is quite amusing how the Argentines leap on something like like the sound and immediately assume it is true or that all the islander's views who are not similar must be wrong.
Nov 13th, 2010 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As Marcos Alejandro has stated before, Britain must go, and in the end it will have to go; the issue is one of how and when.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 12:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas Argentinas.
As I have stated before ... Morecrap is wrong. The Islanders will still be there in 100 years time, it's only whether as British or as an independent nation that is in doubt. They will not be Argentine :-)
Nov 14th, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt lol don't panic! lol calm down, it's all about when. When the time is right, we'll be there, again, as it was before you. There is a time for everything.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's almost 10 PM, I gotta go. Enjoy it while you can :) I'll drink some Fernandos for you Red.
It's almost 10 PM
Nov 14th, 2010 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's almost 10 PM Current time in Chile?
Current time in Argentina!
Nov 14th, 2010 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone know how this rig is going to reach the islands through the impenetrable Argentine blockade?
Nov 14th, 2010 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas are Argentine. Never forget.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A
“ ... The Malvinas are Argentine. Never forget .....”
Nov 14th, 2010 - 03:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Err ... you appear to be confused! Have you not noticed what flag is flying over the Falkland Islands? It's a bit like saying, “ The Moon is Argentine. Never forget.” Plain dumb!!
No my friend, I have seen flying its flag. But after of removing my flag.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Moon is Argentine. Argentina's claim makes sense. What you say of the moon does not make sense.
Where's the sense in maintaining a spurious claim which has been unenforceable for 177 years, indeed longer as your attempt at invasion in 1832 resulted in ejection in 1833. The claim remains unenforceable ....... that flag will still be flying in another 177 years :-)
Nov 14th, 2010 - 05:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the UK has to leave the Islands then I guess there exists an International Law that says so? Can someone direct me to the law that says this. I guess Argentina will then take this to the ICJ to sort out the formalities.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I suppose the only other way would be for the Islandsers to determine for themselves another future. After all there is an International Law that enshrines the right of self-determination.
invasion in 1832??? Claim spurious???? You are invaders!!!!
Nov 14th, 2010 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0John 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. ”
John Troutbeck aint in a postion to give the Falklands back
Nov 14th, 2010 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you need to get in touch try this
http://www.psychics.co.uk/spiritualism/
@ stick up your junta
Nov 14th, 2010 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0John Troutbeck aint in a postion to give the Falklands back
if you need to get in touch try this
www.psychics.co.uk/spiritualism/
Why's there an echo in here?
Nov 14th, 2010 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0John Troutbeck aint in a postion to give the Falklands back
Nov 14th, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.psychics.co.uk/spiritualism/ jajajaja very good, very good. It's incredible how clog eyes and ears
Come malvinplonk 1833 help your deluded pals and tell me which international law tells that the UK is trespassing and that the Islands are Argentine.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wake up and enter the real world. Anyone around in 1833 is dead.
Beef, how can you talk about international law when international law is pretty much written by and for imperialists countries like England? You don't know what law is about.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Listen xbox kinect, I wasn't the one that raised it. It was your idiotic compatriots that accuse us of breaking international law. Yet will not take the matter for independent scrutiny.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we don't know what law is then why do most democratic countries base their legal systems on English Common Law and even many that use religious law have a duel system incorporating ECL.
Imperialism has long since passed you idiot. Apart from in Argentina who want to be an imperialistic nation by enforcing their authority on the Islands. Well you tried and failed in 1982. As you all have dogged my query then it seams you muppets don't have an answer.
“Argentina who want to be an imperialistic nation by enforcing their authority on the Islands.” hahahahahahahahahahaha Too much,
Nov 14th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm leaving, my girlfriend is with my mother sebando mates. Be happy Beef. Aguante Quilmes, we're doing it pretty well.
Malvinas Argentinas, yesterday, today and always.
Nah X-box. You are leaving because you have no reply worthy of countering my argument. Ultimatly international law supports the Islander's rights to determine their own future. I don't see your flag over the Islands, I don't see your government issuing drilling licences and I don't see the Islanders speaking your Iberian dialect.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am happy, RKH saw to that :-)
Now run along and find a post office to poo in.
Britain's violent appropriation of the Falklands in 1833 was totally illegal and unsupported by any legal factor. Was carried out with behavior that international law had long condemned. At the time of the crime, the islands were an integral part of Argentina and the United Kingdom took the islands snatched a bean independent state inherited the title of Spain, perfecting the title through the takeover of the November 20, 1820. Continue... Malvinas for ever in my heart.
Nov 14th, 2010 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Was carried out with behavior that international law had long condemned”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1833, there was no such thing as international law...
#74 - Wrong. The British ambassador to BA gave Vernett permission to go to the islands in the 1820's which supports the contention that the British were administering the islands at that time. The arrival of BA's garrison in 1832 was an act of invasion which was dealt with by British forces.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The islands were never an integral part of Argentina. Spain had the only other claim which had been dealt with in all practical respects in 1771. Spain didn't recognise Argentina until the 1850's so Argentina's claim that she 'inherited' the Spanish claim is spurious!
Need to work on your history Malvin ... don't rely on the school textbooks :-)
@ Redhoyt #76
Nov 15th, 2010 - 12:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Wrong. The British ambassador to BA gave Vernett permission to go to the islands in the 1820's which supports the contention that the British were administering the islands at that time.” Maggie's history books are not your bet allies, Red.
“Spain didn't recognise Argentina until the 1850's so Argentina's claim that she 'inherited' the Spanish claim is spurious!” Who cares if Spain didn't recognize anything? Islas Malvinas since those days, were part of what since then is known as Argentina.
Brits are so used to steal things from people, that believe they have some kind of authority to tell people what to do, what to think, what to say, what to believe lol
At the time of dispossession English, Argentina was in real and actual possession of the Malvinas, and Argentine settlers had established authorities and in them were expelled by Britain. It is equally important to highlight here that the illegality of the British invasion, taking the islands in 1833, has been recognized by several historians, academics and legal consultants commissioned by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Great Britain to do research on the subject, trying to find favorable legal basis for the British action. And for you Zethee... However, the eminent international jurist Emer de Vattel ( Switzerland 1714-1767), settled case law in these cases when he says that ... no nation has the right to expel other people from the country they live in order to settle it herself .
Nov 15th, 2010 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ha! school textbooks please!
“ ... has been recognized by several historians, academics and legal consultants ...”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0And of course, the opposite is also true!
Prior to 1832 the only settlers were Vernett's and they were only there with British permission. When BA sent a garrison, the British objected and then acted. There was no 'real' possession of the islands by Argentina.
You need tyo read a little more :-)
Redhoyt #79
Nov 15th, 2010 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt you're repeating what your daddy told ya! That's what your country has been doing for centuries, stealing, killing and after, saying THIS LAND IS MINE! lol So true! Plus, you people seem not to understand what you read and the simple concept of justice, YOU CANNOT TAKE OTHER PEOPLE'S PROPERTY, BRITS (ENGLISH), NOT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT THE POWER TO STEAL AND KILL THAT MEANS YOUR GOOD PEOPLE, IT MEANS THE OPPOSITE. All you have to say in your defense, “you were not there, you were not there” Prove it! We prove we were there before you, but even so, you Brits are still there. As many other countries finally got rid of you Brits, we will do the same. It's all a matter of time.
¡MALVINAS ARGENTINAS!
Xbrain - my daddy told me nothing, I did my own research. As for your contentions - well no, take a good look at history and you'll find that those that can take, tend to be able to keep. We were there in 1695 ... where was Argentina? Oh yeah ... you didn't exist. We were there in 1771 ... where was Argentina? Oh yeah ... you didn't exist. We were there in 1833 ... what was Argentina? Oh yeah, a loser!
Nov 15th, 2010 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0In fact, a would be thief that couldn't hold on to what it tried to steal.
Your contentions appear to be wrong... after all ... we've still got them!
Redhoyt #81
Nov 15th, 2010 - 06:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hello!!!! You're forgetting about the Spaniards! I don't know how you understand history, but it sure is not the way history works.
The name of the country, traditionally called the Argentine in English,[8][9] is derived from the Latin argentum (silver), which comes from the Ancient Greek ἀργήντος (argēntos), gen. of ἀργήεις (argēeis), “white, shining”.[10] Αργεντινός (argentinos) was an ancient Greek adjective meaning “silvery”.[11] The first use of the name Argentina can be traced to the 1602 poem “La Argentina y conquista del Río de la Plata” (English: The Argentina and the conquest of the Río de la Plata) by Martín del Barco Centenera. Although this name for the Platine region was already in common usage by the 18th century, the area was formally called Viceroyalty of the Río de la Plata in 1776. The autonomous governments that emerged from the 1810 May Revolution replaced “Viceroyalty” with a “United Provinces” designation.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argentina
There are thousands of pages and books about Argentina. Go read them and learn, if you wan to. I won't bother typing information on Argentina's origins, things you could find for yourself if you wanted to.
English Wipikedia always lacks tons of info about Argentina. Why? Anyway, if you're interested, go read good books, not only those written in English and printed in the UK. Learn some Spanish and read books in Spanish, it will open your eyes, unless you want to keep your eyes blinded by the light of the English historians.
Good night, gotta go to sleep.
So what are you trying to say Xbrain? That Argentina existed before 1811 ... or 1816 .... or 1859???
Nov 15th, 2010 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's history is sufficiently convoluted that you struggle to claim 200 years of history .... but the fact remains that the British were in the Falkland Islands before Argentina was a reality!
83 Redhoyt
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm still up, Red.
How fresh! Red wants to be an ignorant for life! You obviously won't read any book about Argentina, except those that you love, Maggie's books. It's ok. Before my country was independent from Spain, we were a Viceroyalty, we gain our Independence and we kept this land plus Islas Malvinas, we took possession of the islands as an independent country in 1820. Easy! huh?
Esteban Gómez (1520)
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteban_G%C3%B3mez
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteban_G%C3%B3mez
There's still even more, you are fogetting about our Indios Patagónicos. Many historians and Archaeologists say that our Indios Patagónicos were there long before the Europeans. People living in what is now Tierra del Fuego, los Onas were in Islas Malvinas before Europeans. It makes no sense to this Red person when he says “I won't read any book of history about your country, because I want to be an ignorante for life”.Keep your ignorance to yourself, then, Red.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esteban_G%C3%B3mez
This is crazy, birds are singing and it's almost dawning lol Ciao
We had sovereignty before 1820 Xbrain .... we'd had it since 1765 at the latest .... no good you coming along a few decades late and trying to stake a claim.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Those Indios ... were they the ones that the Spanish settlers wiped out?
The islands were empty when we got there and no pior claim (we'll ignore mad popes!) ... so they belong to Britain. Goodnight!
“we gain our Independence and we kept this land plus Islas Malvinas”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't keep anything xbox. You too what land you could by force. That did not include the Falklands. You did not even conquer Patagonia until the 1870s. You are the one who should be reading all these wonderful books packed with Argentine history.
“ You did not even conquer Patagonia until the 1870s.” ???? What are you talking about? Conquering la Patagonia? That is nothing but an expression, just a Romantic Expression, nothing more, I conquer La Patagonia! People, you are the greatest clowns ever! “You did not even conquer Patagonia until the 1870s.” hahahahaha You really are a waste of jelqs.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh right .... empty was it ? Just walked in??
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exbrain, you need sleep ... your grey matter is not functioning!!
l think xbox has finally cracked under the strain. we don't need to bother with him anymore. one less crazy malvinista. what a load of drivel he talks.l said once that it was futile argueing with you Argentineans, yet here l am doing it!!!!!!!!!!! however l must admit it is fun listening to your distortions of history and your silly macho-threats.go away and invade someone else, you couldn't succeed with us maybe you can feel your latin-manhood & conquer someone else like paraguay or bolivia(someone smaller than you)or even uruguay.(hint-leave Brazil &Chile alone, you'll probably get your arses kicked there)
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Xblox
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0“we took possession of the islands as an independent country in 1820. Easy! huh?”
OK then...and the UK then took possession of the islands as an independent Union, Easy!
:-)
Oh, so what was the Conquista del Desierto xbox? Funny how most of the towns and cities in Argentina south of the Salado (del sur) river have foundation dates after the 1870s, with very few exceptions like Bahia Blca (which was a fuerte and accessed from the sea). Why would you need to build forts on your own territory? Unless of course it wasn't your territory and you were trying to steal it from someone else. Oh, and why build a zanja? Was it to keep the cows in? I don't think so...
Nov 15th, 2010 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0oh you're Mr Bean, J.A. Roberts, go back to the library.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RyDY0hiMZy8
Those were just names, Mr. Bean, romantic names, if you want to call it. Barbra Streisand said “I'll conquer New York” and she did. Now that's romantic!
How will you conquer what's yours already? People, you need shock therapy to wake up to reality.
If it was yours already why did you need a “conquista” (del desierto)?
Nov 15th, 2010 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Roberts, you're so stupid hahaha there wasn't any “Conquista del Desierto”, it's jut a poetic way of saying other people different than the indigenous people started building houses in “El Desierto”. It's like saying, a new species of plant conquers the woods. Go and conquer some good books, Mr. bean! Stop reading your garbage everyday.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To bring this to an end! Talking about a time when those who saw it are now fertilizing the grass is pointless. 1833 has no relevance! What matters is 2010 and what International Law tells us. The Islanders rights to determine their own future is the only matter of any relevance. Argentina knows this and this is the reason they don't take their delusional claims to the ICJ.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina tried to force their authority on the Islands in 1982 and got taught a lesson they won't forget.
ICJ or nothing!
I have put my money where my mouth is, about time you did the same!
nothing it is I reckon beef, no way the RGs'll take their case to the ICJ, why would they? they know they'd lose.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 06:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Come on then Xblox, call me a liar.....
Oh, xbox, so the “rifle patrias” were used to shoot game for the pot during the conquista del desierto? I don't think so!
Nov 15th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Under the doctrine of Vattel and according to the rules of international law 18 and 19 centuries, (for you Zethee... In 1833, there was no such thing as international law... ) the British take the Falklands in 1833 was absolutely illegal, and that occupation by itself does not provide the legal basis for the acquisition of title them legal.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Moreover, the British presence in the Argentine territory of the Malvinas Islands is still illegal because it was never certified by Argentina after the consummation of the misappropriation.
Alexander J. Betts.-
An Argentine with a brave heart, discovered a painful truth, and not hiding.
@ WestisBest
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We surely know we'd win. We are waiting for you to talk about this, Brits, bu you know you'd lose lol
The ICJ? Are you feeling like you are being RAPED by us? lol
Roberta, go back to the School for the Challenged lol
How can xbarilox posts be recognised?
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Imagination - Most are frighteningly obvious; sexist comments on nurses' groups, blasphemy on religious groups .. I kid you not.
Pedantic in the Extreme - Many trolls' preparation is so thorough, that while they waste time, they appear so ludicrous from the start that they elicit sympathetic mail - the danger is that once the group takes sides, the damage is done.
False Identity - Because they are cowards, trolls virtually never write over their own name, and often reveal their trolliness (and lack of imagination) in the chosen ID. As so many folk these days use false ID, this is not a strong indicator on its own!
Crossposting - Any post that is crossposted to several groups should be viewed as suspicious, particularly if unrelated or of opposing perspective. Why would someone do that?
Off-topic posting - Often genuine errors, but, if from an 'outsider' they deserve matter-of-fact response; if genuine, a brief apposite response is simply netiquette; if it's a troll post, you have denied it its reward.
Repetition of a question or statement is either a troll - or a pedant; either way, treatment as a troll is effective.
Missing The Point - Trolls rarely answer a direct question - they cannot, if asked to justify their twaddle - so they develop a fine line in missing the point.
Thick or Sad - Trolls are usually sad, lonely folk, with few social skills; they rarely make what most people would consider intelligent conversation. However, they frequently have an obsession with their IQ and feel the need to tell everyone. This is so frequent, that it is diagnostic! Somewhere on the web there must be an Intelligence Test for Trolls - rigged to always say “above 150”
@xbox and malvinosense.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You two dummies just don't get it. The Falklands are British because they started being British around 1690. We've seen off the Spanish and we've seen you colonists off twice.
The Falkland Islands will remain a British Overseas Territory (no matter what clowns at the Guardian say) until the Falklanders decide to become an independent country (but with a defence treaty with Britain and a British military presence).
I have explained this again because of your inbred ignorance.
You also need to get used to the idea that Britain will NEVER leave the South Atlantic. We have good reasons of our own, but there is one overriding reason. It annoys and upsets you brats.
wow, my comment was five lines long lol and you typed thousands of words!
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't get scared people, get the facts, the islandars can't decide anything, the UK gonverment will stop being a coward, we'll have a talk about the islands, and we'll decide what to do with the people with them, if they can stay or not. :)
Xbox. You are clearly a bitter, poor uneducated soul. If you are so certain then go to the ICJ. If you would win then you would gain possession of the Islands. Problem is that you be laughed out of town. So you are not a supporter of democracy and appear to support ethnic cleansing. I guess it is understandable given Argentina's sympathy to the Nazis.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK knows how to deal with ethnic cleansers, you could ask Milosovic if he wansn't pushing up daisys. You military know what it is like to be on the sharp end of 2 Para or the Gurkhas.
You and your country hold no cards againt the Islands and are powerless to stop the Islanders exercising their democratic and economic freedoms.
And I am happy to keep contributing to the drilling.
89 Isolde, .“l said once that it was futile argueing with you Argentineans”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What about arguing with your “brothers” the British...
“Ditch the Falklands”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/nov/14/falklands-economic-crisis-politics-argentina
Marcos. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reason there is no point arguing with (certain) Argies is that as soon as they see a Brit they run away into a building with a red cross on it while waving a white flag. Some even go out of their way to poo in a post office.
(103) Beef
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OMG The “Nazi” card again……..
Guess which “Grand Great Briton” declared the following about Herr Adolf Hitler :
“If our country were defeated I should hope we should find a Champion as indomitable to restore our courage and lead us back to our place among the nations.”
or:
“In fifteen years that have followed this resolve, he has succeeded in restoring Germany to the most powerful position in Europe, and not only has he restored the position of his Country, but he has even, to a very great extent, reversed the results of the Great War…. The vanquished are in the process of becoming the victors and the victors the vanquished…. Whatever else might be thought about these exploits they are certainly among the most remarkable in the whole history of the world.”
Mr. Beef………..Are you stressed about your ”fill up entry point” o are you just becoming a Turnip?
Ouch! I thought these Brits were Fascists but they're Nazis.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nah Think. Just editing a chapter on New Public Management. Currently moving from neo-liberalism to the Third way. Clearly time for a drop of single malt. (I think you mean top-up not fill up?)
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dr Beef
Hmmmmmm.....“ from neo-liberalism to the Third way” with a little stop at the Third Reich I see :-)
Nov 15th, 2010 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NOW TO THE IMPORTANT STUFF:
Which Single Malt?
Age?
Some people would certainly use the term Nazi to describe post 1979 reforms but I wouldn't go that far.
Nov 15th, 2010 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice 10 yr old Laphroaig. A smokey flavor all of it's own. May treat myself to a nice 18yr old for Christmas (that's how rumours start). Glad you are back Think. Makes a difference talking to someone who appreciates the finer things in life.
105 Beef , “Marcos. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, even you”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree Doctor Bife.
“People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go away”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2007/apr/02/comment.falklands
(110) Beef
Nov 15th, 2010 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Never learned to like those primordial peaty ones.
The simple complexity of a smooth Speyside,……….. that’s just me.
BTW: I meant “Fill Up”… Like in: “ Fill the Gas Tank Up”…. you know? :-)
J. A. ROBERT:
Nov 15th, 2010 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This time i am not going to debate about anything with you, i adress to you because i need you to tell me, how do you say in english: paises no alineados. I need to buid that phrase because i need to include it in my survey. Thanks.
“ ... Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid, its dispute with Britain will never go ...”
Nov 15th, 2010 - 11:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go? It's going nowhere :-)
Not that keep on Laphroaig myself, now a nice 15 year old Glenfarclas ? Not that I get them very often these days :-)
Lol he's still going on about that survey.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0@99 Xblox
Nov 16th, 2010 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Eh? What's Britian got to talk about? If you're waiting for them to appeal against the RG soveriegnty claim you'll have a long wait....In case you hadn't noticed Britain already has sovereignty of the Falklands, it's up to you to instigate change.....
Cluck cluck...
@Axel
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Países no alineados = Non-aligned countries
Regardless, 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 it over for use as a military airbase. It should not be forgotten, of course, that the former inhabitants of Diego Garcia happen to have dark skin while the 3,000 residents of the Falkland Islands are white, English speaking colonists.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well spotted ExBrain ... but your point is??
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's not my point at all, don't get nervous, it's just some more facts about Britain's twisted way of understanding justice, self-determination and democratic rights, you'll find it everywhere, books, web pages, etc.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever Xbarilox, it's Britains approach to the Falklands that matters to you, you said:
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0“We surely know we'd win. We are waiting for you to talk about this, Brits, but you know you'd lose lol”
Well....what are you waiting for then? If you want to take your case to the ICJ then just do it, you don't need Britains permission do you?
“British government continues to refuse to negotiate sovereignty of the islands”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British government is under no obligation to “negotiate sovereignty”, whatever that means. It encouraged by UN resolutions to negotiate an end to the sovereignty dispute, but nothing more and that certainly does not mean a transfer of sovereignty.
You give the example of the Chagossians as a miscarriage of justice (and I don't think any thinking person who contributes to these threads disagrees) and yet that is EXACTLY what you (and the Argentine) government wants done to the Falkland Islanders.
It astounds me that you somehow think what was done to the Chagossians justifies your own position regarding the Falklands, when in fact it shoots your position in the foot! Are you too thick to see that xbox?
Tut tut tut!
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Gentlemen,Laphroaig, in common with all the Islay malts is somewhat kippered!
Better by far a nice 10 yo Isle of Jura, or The Macallan, or The Glenlivet.
Oddly enough, Bell's Islander, for a blend, is very good, long and complex enough to satisfy most tastes.
Better than Glen Grant, or Aberlour, both of which I regard a “baby” malts, a starter for those embarking on the study of God's own nectar.
38....Morecrap
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0“What do you know about law you warmonger bloody thief!”
-A lot more it would seem because you have yet to state the specific law the UK has violated in respect of drilling?
“UK the one who invade Irak based in a big lie?”
-Ah Iraq the last resort of an individual who has lost his argument, coherency and sanity. Iraq has done for future generations in debates, what the Nazis did for similar debates in the past, lose an argument play the Iraq card!
“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?”
-eeer? Considering its not actually the UK who ordered these drilling operations but the FIG, you also refer to colonists in the present tense, its very hard to be a colonist if you are born there as the descendants of several generations dating back to the 1800's, are you a colonist per chance?
Now can we get back to simple questions? Which International law has the UK violated in respect of drilling?
Which one specifically says: “The inhabitants of the Falklands have no rights to exploit mineral resources for their own benefit within their own territorial and administrative boundaries”.
I don't think you can answer that one can you? Are you going to play the Iraq card again little man?
See Godwin's law re mentioning the Nazis. I guess we'll have to call the likelihood of playing the Iraqi card Craughwell's law? Any suggestions for a law relating to the Chagossian card?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 10:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0@102 xbox
Nov 16th, 2010 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And thus you confirm my point about your lack of education and intelligence. Only an uneducated Argentine ignoramus could characterise 114 words as “thousands of words”.
you, bunch of sappy boys, calm down, it was just a comment, let the politicians do the work, they know what to do :)
Nov 16th, 2010 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0124 Rhaul-Crouch ,
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,...”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
, 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.”
So More crap? The man with the crotch obsession.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see you took several hours and 5 paragraphs to say absolutely nothing?
Are you going to answer the question?
Lets make it simpler.
Which international law states that the Falkland Islanders have violated international law by exploring for hydrocarbons?
I wonder did Argentina violate international law by not consulting Spain, I mean you did use military force to expell the Spanish authorities and violated the territorial integrity of the Spanish empire? Therefore you violated Vattels guidelines (they were not and never were rules or incorporated laws that governed relationships between nations), oh yes and you also violated Vattels guidelines when you occupied the Chacos, Pampas and Patagonia.
One other point Vattels guidelines only apply to expulsions, no Argentines were expelled from the Falklands ooooops!
So you see More Crap you know Jack about international law. If we've violated international law, surely you would go to the ICJ? Oh yes and wouldn't the UN have referred to it as illegal?
I'm still waiting your answer on which specific international law we've violated, now we've gone on a flying tangent from Iraq to Vattel and some regurgitated articles from the guardian.
So Morecrap which international law has been violated? Which one says “Islanders are not allowed to drill for oil”?????
129Rhaul-Crotch
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you need glasses or you are in shock?
”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
, 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.”
Rhaurie, don't be scared, politicians know what to do, let them do the job Rhaurie :)
Nov 16th, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@130 Marcos Alejandro
Nov 16th, 2010 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Do you need glasses or you are in shock?”
Doubt it Marcos, he was asking what Law had been broken, not about vague quasi-legal statements made by historians with no validation. One could say that the Roman invasion of Britain was illegal for instance...and what does it really mean?....eff all if there is no actual law that has been broken.
More Shite. I take it your refusal to give me a direct answer is Malvinist speak for:
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Perhaps if I just type incoherent ideas which I sourced using google but have made to look like my own words, he might leave me alone and no longer challenge my inability top come up with a coherent response”
I will state again, which law has been broken? Which states that the Islanders aren't allowed to exploit resources within their territorial and administrative boundary?
I did not ask for a running commentary on a Swiss thinker whose ideas have never been incorporated as International law.
Xbox, the politicians know what to do, give Argentina a cup of shut the fuck up, which consecutive British governments have done since 1982.
Its pretty categorical, “The Falklands will be British so long as they wish to remain British”.
Don't be scared Xbox let your politicians whine incoherently for the next 100 years, its quite funny, who Knows you might beat Spains record of 300 years of incoherent whining about non existent violations of international law.
Rhaul-Crotch , Don't get upset mate you asked me and I answered your question already twice in your native language.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is it hard to admit the truth or you just got your rear end kicked?
The octopus is loosing his tentacles...
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8e/English_imperialism_octopus.jpg
You want proof of Malvinas Argentinas.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:00 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”.
“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”
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In a nutshell:
It's illegal because we say it is.
:-)
Forum moderator, with all my respect to you, Can I ask you what do you think about comment # 133? You removed one of my comments because I used foul language, in Guaraní, unfortunately, you too seem to speak Guaraní :) Why not doing the same with comment #133 as you did with my comment? Are the words sh*te and f*uck tolerated? Is foul language tolerated?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”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.”
Thank you,
Cristian.
Oh grow up Xbox, sticks & stones mate.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Westty, I didn't report the comment, don't worry, I'm just asking why he removed my comment that you, for example, couldn't understand, cuz it was written in Guaraní lol It's just a question, ok?
Nov 16th, 2010 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you might not have pressed the 'report abuse' button but....
Nov 16th, 2010 - 10:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Forum moderator, with all my respect to you, Can I ask you what do you think about comment # 133”.....sounds pretty much like a report to me. Only difference is your're doing it publicly.
Westty the Note says “Please report any inadequate posts to the editor.” and I didn't, so I'm not obeying the rules, as you can see lol
Nov 16th, 2010 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0137 xbarilox:
Nov 16th, 2010 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The deletion of posts is sometimes very random on here, i've had posts deleted while not insulting or being rude to anyone.
I've posted a comment for you in Guaraní that day, unfortunately the forum moderator, aparently reads or speaks Guaraní, anyway, it was just a question, because sometimes it's nice when you can use foul language. Like F*ck u for example.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cool story.
Nov 16th, 2010 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THIMC
Nov 17th, 2010 - 07:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maggie was the ”Best Man in England”, being a Lady…………….
Xbarilox is the ”Best Argie in MercoPress” being a Chilean…….....
I luuuuuuv to see all those British posters being ”provoked” and ”winning their arguments” against that Troll from the other side of the Andes :-)
Make it hot for them Chilenito…..
Keep them busy……….
against that Troll from the other side of the Andes :-)
Nov 17th, 2010 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I think we worked that one out, despite your wisdom Brain of Argentina
“Westty the Note says “Please report any inadequate posts to the editor.” and I didn't, so I'm not obeying the rules, as you can see lol”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ooooh....your'e such a rebel Xbox. Shithead. There...you can go crying to the editor again if you want.
@145 Keep them busy think? one person? anyway doesn't really matter,
wherever he's from Xbox is in your camp...and unlike your good self he's not afraid to stand up for what he believes in.
Ah Morecrap is starting to squirm uncomfortably in his seat as I chip away at his (lack of) credibility.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now Bhoyo, enough fantasizing about my crouch, I don't think a picture of an octopus answers my question:
Which international law has been violated which states the Islanders aren't allowed to exploit resources within their territorial and administrative boundary?
Its so simple Morecrap! All you just need to do to end this is type the particular law which prevents this.
Now if we can get an answer which doesn't involve pictures of octopuses, the writings of a Swiss thinker whose ideas never became international law, and an unhealthy obsession with the region below by belt.... I would consider it a success.
Rhaul-Crotch,
Nov 17th, 2010 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When you've lost the argument, pretend like you never had it, you will sleep better and your blood pressure will go down.
The exploration is illegal because it takes place in Argentine waters.
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.”
“Vattel’s doctrine and in accordance with the norms of international law during the 18th and 19th centuries”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vattel's “The Law of Nations” was a theory, not an internationally signed law agreement.
International law only truly began in 1945 with the start of the League of nations, and later the UN.
Try quoting a real law.
”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.”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina never established sovereignty over the Falklands so has never been in the position to legalise anything regarding them.
The expulsion of the Argentine Garrison in 1833 was legal, and supported by the Secret Clause within the Agreement with Spain in 1771, signed by both Countries after hostilities on the Islands made by Spanish forces without Spanish Government approval, actions which almost caused Britain and Spain to go to war.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no Argentine (or United Provinces), inheritance from Spain of the Falkland Islands; firstly in 1811 the Islands were administered by Spain from Montevideo, Uruguay, and secondly, Argentina (United Provinces), declared Independence by force of violence, not succession. Argentina (United Provinces), did not have effective control of the Islands in 1811 or 1816, and Britain just waited for anyone to establish a settlement on the Islands to invoke the Secret Clause which established full British Sovereignty over the Islands.
Argentina provided this in 1832, so Britain expelled the Argentine Garrison in 1833.
Done and dusted.
British site
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“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. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands to reassert control to themselves as the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority”
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
British site
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First 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. My interest in the subject is purely that of a personal journey of discovery; to give myself a reason to research what I regard as a fascinating subject.
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/
Introduction
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At its peak, the British Empire was the largest formal empire that the world had ever known. As such, its power and influence stretched all over the globe; shaping it in all manner of ways. This site is dedicated to analysing the history of the British Empire: The triumphs, the humiliations, the good that it brought and the “bad that it inflicted ”
It's easy to argue with someone who hasn't got an argument.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 08:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@wireless, I explain Succession of States: Uti Possidetis
Nov 17th, 2010 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1810 Spain had a better right than Britain over the Malvinas Islands, therefore the result of State succession in Spain on behalf of the United Provinces, they remain in the ownership of the territories acquired by those who were in the area court claimed by the new state. Territorial content of a succession of state, a result of colonial emancipation process, is defined by applying the so-called principle of uti possidetis. The application of this principle implies the recognition of the demarcation of the internal colonial jurisdictions, such as were imposed by the predecessor State, irrespective of the actual occupation or possession of the territories allocated to each constituency colonial. The possidetis as an institution of international law is based on conventional standards and practices recognized by the American States during the nineteenth century. The immediate effects of its implementation were both sure that the inheritance of state resulting from the emancipation settlement, occur throughout the territory dominated by the metropolis, as the decrease or minimize the generation of future boundary disputes. The principle of uti possidetis is not a title or autonomous mode of acquisition of territories. Its binding obligations towards third states are given by the fact that an item clarifying the scope colonial territorial constituencies memento of cash transfer to the international responsibility of a particular territory. Therefore the principle of uti possidetis integrates conceptually in the context of the rules applicable to the Succession of States as a mode of acquisition of territory. If the predecessor State was against third parties the sovereign, from the date of the succession, the successor State continues with that sovereignty.
Malvinense, what you mean is uti possidetis juris, not uti possidetis. These are two very different legal concepts. Uti possidetis meant that at the end of a war each belligerent got to keep all the territory it had under its control unless a treaty said otherwise.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was no uti possidetis juris in international law at the time the UP declared its independence, it was not even a regional law. There wasn't even a recognised right for a territory to become independent without its metropolitan states consent, much less for what borders it should have.
Dab. Argentine laws can be applied retroactively, didn't you know?
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0dab, How do I explain mmm According to the international principle of succession planning, the new state claimed the territory that had belonged to the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata. Falkland Islands were an integral part of the viceroyalty. Moreover, the Spanish governor of the island was under authority of the Spanish viceroy in Buenos Aires. The international law principle of territorial succession sanctions that when a colony becomes independent (as did the Viceroyalty), the emergent sovereign state (the United Provinces of Río de la Plata) inherits the territory held as a colony. In cases where the independence of a colony leads to the establishment of two or more states (our case), the new states are divided the territory of the former colony including through agreements or treaties. (This principle of territorial succession was recognized last century with the independence of most former European colonies in Africa and Asia.). A British secret document - the S17111 (AS - 5728/311/2) dated September 17, 1946, admits that the British lack the islands for the period 1774-1832 is the abandonment of any right or title prior to 1832 , even assuming that such rights or securities have been valid.
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“In 1810 Spain had a better right than Britain over the ... Islands ...”
Nov 17th, 2010 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's a moot point. Britain certainly believes that it had the better claim dating back to 1771. The mere fact that we did not object to Spains continued use of the islands does not mean that we granted in sole sovereignty.
In any case, Spain did not recognise Argentina's independence until long after the British had shown that they, in fact, had the greater right to the Falklands by reasserting their authority.
“ ... The international law principle of territorial succession ...”
Please tell me where it stated that in 1833. You say yourself that the principle was not recognised until 'last century'. So it did not apply in 1833.
In any case Uti Possidetis (the original, not Uti Possidetis Juris) can be applied to 1833 and, indeed, to 1982!
@Red, This principle of territorial succession was recognized last (sorry I mean century XIX) century with the independence of most former European colonies in Africa and Asia.) Britain certainly believes that it had the better claim dating back to 1771. Why had better right? by Davies, by Hawkins?
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fag is still upset for what I wrote in my first comment on Mercopress lol
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinense 1833 , ”A British secret document - the S17111 (AS - 5728/311/2) dated September 17, 1946, admits that the British lack the islands for the period 1774-1832 is the abandonment of any right or title prior to 1832..”
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very interesting!
Marcos Alejandro, yup , but with all this evidence, they do not want to see!
Nov 18th, 2010 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Our right goes back to the claim of 1765, supported by the victory over the Spanish in 1771. The assertion of our rights through recognised practice in 1776. We never let go of sovereignty. Not maintaining a military presence does not equate to a disposal of sovereignty. Diplomatically we reasserted our right throughout the 1820's and used force to dispose of the trespassing garrison in 1833 ( also Uti Possidetis - the original version, to the arguableUti Possidetis
Nov 18th, 2010 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Juris ).
So - 1833, job done :-)
And what is the relevance of a document dated 1946? None !!
for you all is irrelavante, have no way to refute.The first document secret investigation into the validity of evidence of the Crown over the Malvinas Islands was conducted by an official of British Foreign Ministry in 1910 and was produced under the labels of “SECRET” and “CONFIDENTIAL.” Your internal reference number is 9755 and is on file 881/9755 of the Ministry. The British official, Gaston de Bernhardt, explains:
Nov 18th, 2010 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0”About an hour before the meeting of Parliament on January 22, 1771, signed a statement by the Spanish Ambassador to fulfill orders for the restitution of the Falkland Islands to His Majesty, but the important condition on which this statement was obtained was not mentioned in the declaration. That condition was - that British forces should evacuate the Falkland Islands as soon as was convenient after they had been put in possession of the Port and Fort Egmont -, and the British Ministry agreed, as a token of his sincerity, to keep the promise they should be the first to disarm (England was preparing for war against Spain).
These facts are confirmed by the Comte de Guines (the intermediary between Spain and Great Britain) in its brief and British historians Belsham, Miller, Coote, Wade Hughes, who have described these transactions in his book “The History of England” .
An office of Mr. J. Harris, HM Ambassador in Madrid, to Lord Rochford, the February 14, 1771, stating that ”they (the Spanish government) that we have given repeated verbal safety of evacuating the Falkland Islands in the space of two months.” Here, do not question any right of title or title examination is requested. Fully understood that the discussion between the parties is at issue between Spain and Great Britain and with it, this country is recognizing the legitimacy of Spanish law. Bernhardt's conclusion was that the occupation of the Islands in 1833 was contrary to the terms of several Anglo-Spanish treaties, including the Nootka signed in 1790.
What a load of cr#p ...... nobody can find this 'secret document'. As for Gaston de Bernhardt .... he doesn't sound very English to me!
Nov 18th, 2010 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Check out (as I've said before) Viscount Palmerston's response to this ludicrous suggestion back in 1834. He quotes official correspondence from the time - “ ...JAMES HARRIS, Esq. to the EARL OF ROCHFORD.
”Madrid, 14th February 1771.
“They keep the declaration here as secret as possible. I do not find any to whom they have shown it, except those to whom they are obliged to communicate it. They also report that we have given a verbal assurance to evacuate Falkland's Island in the space of two months......”
A rumour spread by Spain in an attempt to save face. The instruction to the ship going to retake possession of the islands was, however, quite clear - “ ... ”Your lordships will direct Captain Stott to behave with the greatest prudence and civility towards the Spanish commander and the subjects of his Catholic Majesty, carefully avoiding any thing that might give occasion to disputes or animosity, and strictly restraining the crews of the ships under his command in this respect; but if, at or after the restitution to be made, the Spanish commander should make any protest against his Majesty's right to Port Egmont, or Falkland's Islands, it is his Majesty's pleasure that the commander of his ships should answer the same by a counter-protest, in proper terms, of his Majesty's right to the whole of the said islands, and against the right of his Catholic Majesty to any part of the same....”
Palmerston's papers still exist, your secret document is nothing but a myth !!
Malvinense 1833: there are a number of problems with your argument that the principle of uti possidetis juris applies to help Argentina's case.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 05:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly, a nation has to have a consistent approach to the principle in order for it to be taken seriously in an international court of law. Argentina can't on the one hand say that it applies in respect of the Falklands and on the other say that it doesn't/didn't apply in respect of its border disputes with its other neighbours. Putting the concept of uti possidetis juris into practice in South America was a complete disaster.
Secondly, the principle requires that the territory concerned must be completely vacant, that is, claimed and/or administered by no other sovereign state. The Falklands did not fall into this category. They had been claimed and administered by France, England/UK and Spain and were still at the very least claimed by the UK, if not, arguably, being directly administered by the UK from the Falklands.
Thirdly, even if one could apply the principle directly to the Falklands, there was, during that period, rightly or wrongly, always the possibility that a nation like the UK or France could come along and boot you out! Might is right, and all that. I don't say that I agree with it, simply that it was an accepted part of affairs between nations, hence the doctrine of uti possidetis (as opposed to uti possidetis juris). Having come along and kicked the Argentine garrison out, because Argentina did not do anything militarily to try to establish themselves back on the Islands and then signed up to the 1850 Convention of Settlement, Argentina accepted the fact that the UK had sole sovereignty of the Islands. That was an end to the matter.
Any claim that Argentina had (and it must be said that every part of its claim is riddled with doubt) died in 1833, was confirmed dead in 1850 and was buried in 1982.
Let's hear it for 1833 :-)
Nov 18th, 2010 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0150 Zethee, “International law only truly began in 1945 with the start of the League of nations, and later the UN
Nov 18th, 2010 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try quoting a real law”
Well, let me quote from this article from an International Lawyer, British by the way.
“However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.”
“ In the case of the Falklands, unilateral action is, therefore, not a viable option in the long term”
http://www.thelawyer.com/opinion-the-future-of-the-falklands-could-it-be-compromise?/1003785.article
1833! 1833!
Nov 18th, 2010 - 06:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Moving on...
The best that can be said for Argentina's position is that it inherited from Spain a dispute over the sovereignty of the Falklands with the UK. And even this is in doubt, as it is arguable that it is not possible to inherit through a unilateral declaration of independence territory whose sovereignty is already in dispute. Once Spain's claim to the Islands fell away, the last man standing was the UK, which got undisputed sovereignty.
In any event, what Argentina needed to do in order to gain sovereignty of the Islands was to establish effective control and administration over the Islands. It failed to do so because, as soon as the UK was aware that Argentina was trying to do so, it dispatched its successful mission to remove the Argentine garrison. The UK (whether it had or had not effectively controlled and administered the Islands previously) has established uninterrupted, effective control of the Islands since 1833.
The true nature of Argentina's claim is demonstrated in its decision to lump the Falklands in with its utterly unfounded and ridiculous claims to the other sub-Antartic islands. These claims have no foundation whatsoever. Argentina has never controlled or administered them and its claim that it should own them based on proximity is laughable. Argentina would have been better served keeping its claims to the Falklands and its claims to the other islands separate. That it didn't can be put down primarily to the latin mentality of macho-bullism, even in the face of a clearly stronger adversary, and its knowledge of the actual strength of Argentina's claims! Argentina's politicians know that Argentina will never “recover” the Falklands or any other territory it claims from the UK either militarily or diplomatically. Argentina's governments have been deluding you into thinking that you will for their own purposes. If you disagree, lobby your government to take the case to the ICJ. Your government's reaction will give you the answer.
“Well, let me quote from this article from an International Lawyer, British by the way.”
Nov 18th, 2010 - 08:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how you missed the word “Opinion” Marcos. That is nothing more than the opinion of one of the partners at Lovells. About as much value to this discussion as Christina Fdz de K's opinion on Botox.
More Shite, the crotch sniffer:
Nov 18th, 2010 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Blood pressures fines crotch sniffer, but I can see your blood pressure sky rockets when you see a males crotch ;)
So MoreCrapo Alejackass, which law has been broken that forbids the islanders from drilling and exploiting resources within their own administrative, which says:
“The inhabitants of the Falklands are forbidden from exploiting resources within their own administrative and territorial boundaries”
Lets set some parameters:
Vattels doctrine does not count:
1. It was never international law, ergo it can't have been violated.
2. It refers to expulsions, not changes of sovereignty. and in the. first case, no Argentine squatters were expelled in 1833.
3. It does not state an outcome for territories in dispute.
Pictures of octopuses do not count
Obscure non academic Websites do not count.
Statements by a lawyer in the guardian do not count.
It seems Marcos your desperate and clinging at straws, its very easy to admit you made a mistake, your certainly paying for it now crotch sniffer!
Right I'm bored I will give More Cunt the Crotch Sniffer of Cordoba's answer he does not want to hear.
Answer: No law has been broken, there is no law which says that long term inhabitants of a territory cannot exploit natural resources for their own benefit.
In fact the exploitation of natural resources is a fundamental part of the universal declaration of human rights, saying all groups have the liberty to exploit natural resources in their own recognized administrative boundaries.
Falkland Islanders= Group of peoples
Falklands Islands= Internationally recognised boundaries of territory and administration (Even Argentina respects these borders hahahaha!)
Falkland Islands= De Facto Sovereignty of the FIG and UK
exploitation of natural resources= perfectly legal under all laws.
If Argentina think it is illegal there is always the ICJ?
The only country in the world who claims it is illegal, seemingly is Argentina.
@ WestisBest
Nov 18th, 2010 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“a power supply 40% of which is 686 Kwh.”
I don’t forget the 40% the problem is I don’t understand what you are asking mate quite simple.
For me is what the article says 40% of the electricity produced in the Island what the article says 686kw/h
Anyway doesn’t matter I like electronics as a hobby (what its not my field) and I’ve designed a panel multi-temporized-programmable for a 4 bed bungee jumping trampoline like this for a friend http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/317484001/bungee_jumping_trampoline/showimage.html
So do you think I will not sleep tonight because of the 686kw?
And last but not least you take for granted too much things for example that I got Argentine education.
What just give be the opportunity to confirm what I was always telling you and my parents Brit education its not good.
I was educated in a Brit School and I was studying some stuff in London can I get my money back please?
How do you think I know so much about your Britain? Do you think that I making up things from wiki as you do?
Don’t you feel a little bit stupid now? I would if I would be you, may be you are better educated than me because you were studying in our universities in Cordoba for example or La Plata as I know someone do
: )
And as you like to make tricky questions here one to probe that you are not from England and not even London.
What was the name of famous iconic place in Leicester Square?
Very easy even though for Mr Bean and he doesn’t look very smart http://www.alibaba.com/product-gs/317484001/bungee_jumping_trampoline/showimage.html
@ Nico
Nov 18th, 2010 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why the hell have you posted that on this thread, you complete spanner!
Rhaul-Crotch,
Nov 18th, 2010 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Statements by a lawyer in the guardian do not count” ???
Your blood pressure is up again Elton or I kicked your rear end again with facts ?
Feel free to read Mr David Moss Biography, very impressive!
http://www.internationallawoffice.com/directory/Biography.aspx?g=841614fb-2130-46e4-8a55-6078a950a59d
Practices
Mergers and Acquisitions
International Arbitration
“However, the Falklands case does highlight a contentious and potentially problematic facet of international law.”
Mr David Moss
“How do you think I know so much about your Britain? Do you think that I making up things from wiki as you do?”
Nov 18th, 2010 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, you just make it up.
Red, “your secret document is nothing but a myth ” Yes, tell this to Peter Beck, professor of International History Kingston University, author of book The Falkland Islands as an International Problem.
Nov 18th, 2010 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Says other Briton (and I lost count) and not an Argentine.
It's a myth and I'll happily tell it to anyone .... show me the source, show me the reference, let's have a look at the original shall we? Oh, we can't. It doesn't exist :-)
Nov 19th, 2010 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0You aren't allowed to see it Redhoyt, it's a secret dontcherknow. they hoewever know all about it, a man in a pub told 'em, mums the word eh.
Nov 19th, 2010 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0;-)
Crotch sniffer? Enough with this bottom fetish of yours!
Nov 19th, 2010 - 11:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now David Moss, did you notice what the articles title was “OPINION” well done Dumb Dumb, you've yet again listed another opinion using a specific search query in google. whats the defining term for opinion? Its held by one person, and isn't necessarily fact
Is David Moss the final word on this dispute....No
Did he state his word was law....No.
Did he actually say the UK had violated international law...No.
Did he state his opinion was fact....No.
Is he a Judge....No, he is an arbitrator, which means he gets sides to talk and resolve their issues.
He said its contentious, and is POTENTIALLY problematic. Note the term “Potentially” Dumbkampf
But he seems to have neglected key phrases which you pretend not to hear.
these being what you claimed: “Drilling is a violation of international Law”.
Which Law has been violated bottom boy? Which law states ”The Islanders are forbidden from exploitation of natural resources within their own administrative and territorial boundary.
I didn't see Your new God and holder of the truth David Moss condemning the drilling or saying its illegal, merely in the interests of peace perhaps the two sides should work together?
Well done Crotch sniffer for spending endless hours searching for any shred of evidence to try and prop up your ridiculous claim that has no merit whatsoever.
What piece of academic evidence will you bamb-boozle me with next? The opinion of your mother? And they say I apparently have my arse kicked and intellectually outwitted by an opinion piece by somebody who has never bene actively involved in the Falklands dispute.
More Crotch, rather than fantasize about licking me in the arse, kick yourself in the head, you may knock some sense into it.
@Zethee
Nov 19th, 2010 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The question of the famous iconic stuff its extended to you now, mate.
Some like you who claims to be from London should know the answer.
Waiting for your answer...
What part of london did you live in? How long did you live here?
Nov 19th, 2010 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Personally prefer camden over the west end, camden's closer and a lot cheaper. I know theres a lot of cinemas and a couple nightclubs, but i refuse to pay £6.50 for a pint.
If you really know london i'll give you a real question. I live between two prisons, where do i live?
160 Malvinense 1833
Nov 19th, 2010 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“dab, How do I explain mmm”
“It's you who needs to have things explained”
“According to the international principle of succession planning,”
Which didn't exist in the 1800s. The first time a group of SA countries reached a formal agreement on borders was at the Congress of Lima 1848. This is the origin of uti possidetis juris
“The international law principle of territorial succession sanctions that when a colony becomes independent (as did the Viceroyalty), the emergent sovereign state (the United Provinces of Río de la Plata) inherits the territory held as a colony.”
In the case of secession, no. The UP achieved its independence by force, without Spain's consent. Spain did not begin to relinquish its territories in the Americas until 1836 (the 1812 constitution forbade it from doing so). When it recognised Argentina without Buenos Aires in 1859
or with Buenos Aires in 1863, no cession of the Falklands took place. You can't inherit something that was never given to you.
“In cases where the independence of a colony leads to the establishment of two or more states (our case), the new states are divided the territory of the former colony including through agreements or treaties.”
The borders between most SA countries are the results of wars.
“(This principle of territorial succession was recognized last century with the independence of most former European colonies in Africa and Asia.).”
They got their independence in the 1960s. There is nothing in uti possidetis juris that says it should be backdated to a time when it didn't exist.
“A British secret document - the S17111 (AS -
5728/311/2) dated September 17, 1946, admits that the British lack the islands for the period 1774-1832 is the abandonment of any right or title prior to 1832 , even assuming that such rights or securities have been valid.”
Argentina is not the successor of Spain so can't use the period of Spanish presence in the islands 1774-1811
Argentina is the successor of Spain, inherited their territories because they were Spanish territories, the new state takes these territories, although Spain did not recognize its independence. England recognized the independence of Argentina with its territorial limits.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0After retiring from the island of Trinidad, Britain never protested the continued presence in the islands of the Spanish settlement and the numerous acts of sovereignty exercised carried out by Spain over the archipelago, including: a) the appointment thereafter twenty different governors of the islands by Spain between 1774 (the date of withdrawal English) until 1811; b) the inclusion of the Falklands in the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata established in 1776; c) the demolition in 1777 under an order from Spain of buildings abandoned by the British in the islands trinidad; c) during the occupation of the city of Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807, the British showed no interest in the islands.
1776. It is the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata establishing its territorial boundaries, within which is included the Falklands. Great Britain did not object to these limits, or provide any reservation of rights. On this date, ruled the Spanish Islands Francisco Gil Lemos. According to the international principle of succession planning, the new state claimed the territory that had belonged to the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata. As indicated above, the Falkland Islands were an integral part of the viceroyalty. Moreover, the Spanish governor of the island was under authority of the Spanish viceroy in Buenos Aires.
“Argentina is the successor of Spain, inherited their territories because they were Spanish territories”
Nov 20th, 2010 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't succeed, LOL. Do you even know your own history?
I suppose the USA is the successor of the UK, they could claim India, Ausralia and Canada!
You don't inherit something by force.
You're ignoring #172 above Marvin ........ Argentina did not inherit the Falkland Islands .... when Spain recognised Argentina, the islands weren't hers to give.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 01833 resolved the issue ........................... the end:-)
@Zethee
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who claim to be from London is you mate not me I only say that I was living there.
How long?
Enough to know the city from North to South to East and west. I don’t claim to be expert on London either but come on mate London its not huge as Buenos Aires. So I was living there more than a 2 years and in many places one was Finsbury Park close to the Park.
Enough considering people like Brits and especially Americans claiming to know a country with just a 30 quick tour.
If you were living in between prisons that could be in many parts in London I’m not specialist in prisons either I don’t even know were are the prison in Buenos Aires. Who do you know with interest to locate prisons? Normally people avoid to live close to prisons for obvious reasons at least you were inside of one of them of course.
But anyway I heard that in North West London and Brixton, etc there are prisons.
My question was quite simple the iconic place of Leicester Square was the Swiss Center (the Swiss house ) that was redeveloped.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7006530.stm
Even a tourist could answer that question mate, so do you understand now why I have My doubts that you are from London?
186 Malvinense 1833
Nov 20th, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina is the successor of Spain, inherited their territories because they were Spanish territories, the new state takes these territories, although Spain did not recognize its independence. ”
You cannot inherit something that was never bequeathed to you
“England recognized the independence of Argentina with its territorial limits.”
Recognition of a state does not imply recognition of all that states territorial claims. Regarding the territorial disputes Argentina has had with Chile did the the UK's recognition of Argentina mean the UK recognised those territories as Argentine, or did the recognition of Chile mean the UK recognised those territories as Chilean? The simple fact is that in the case of secession recognision is over territories the seceding state effectively controls.
“So I was living there more than a 2 years and in many places one was Finsbury Park close to the Park.”
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You lived in Finsbury park and yet don't know the place i was talking about, inbetween two prisons?
I don't believe you, anyone living in and or around holloway/seven sisters knows FULL WELL that there is two prisons just off holloway road/caledonian road.
I'll add:
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To get to camden(Somewhere you would have visited regularly if you did live here), you would passed by holloway womans, likewise going to kingcross you would have passed the mans prison.
You lucked out picking the area i live in.
I need an edit button, lol.
Nov 20th, 2010 - 06:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Even a tourist could answer that question mate, so do you understand now why I have My doubts that you are from London?”
Actutally, i disagree. That information is on wiki, hardly an exclusive peice of information.
Not many locals go to central london, it's expensive and full of tourists. And when i do ever go there i dont spend my time looking at statues and buildings, it's just not that intresting when you've lived here your entire life.
If you ask a local what they know about they area they'll tell you what i did, cinemas.
A swiss building? yeah nico, talk of the town that is!
We have lots of old statues and buildings, isn't very intresting unless it's something specific you are intrested.
I do however know the area you quoted like the back of my hand, i have doubts that you know it though.
@Zethee
Nov 21st, 2010 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn’t know that in LS was the Swiss center and you want me to know your two prisons?
Do you know the park? I live in front of it in a diagonal like street I don’t remember any prison or perhaps was there and never pay attention. But as I said I was living in several places and to be honest I never see or realized that I have a prison just in front of the park. What can I say?
What surprise me more its that this area it is famous for the park and you just point out the Prisions????
Were you living inside that because its so important to you???
For example I know Brixton (what its true) because there is the Bristox Academy I can tell you that in diagonal its the police station for example, that its a little street market, in front of the Lambeth Town Hall, Brixton its a little square and a little cinema and on Briton road a clube called The Fridge.
In the same street of the Lambeth hall some blocks by working there is a Tesco I also remember a street called Electric Line, etc. But I never saw a prison there even is I heard of that.
Do you understand what I try to say? none cares about prisons but everyone knows that in front of Picadilly Circus there is a record shop called Tower Records.
Do you think that people go to London just for your cinemas, prisons and the weather?
Have you ever got outside of those 2 prisons?
You are a estrange character to be from London, sorry but its the way seem for me.
Would be like someone claming to be Porteño (inhabitant of Buenos Aires) and saying that he doesn’t know the Obelisk because its for tourist or the Colon Theatre but he knows a prison in Devoto.
You have to admit that sounds strange.
“You didn’t know that in LS was the Swiss center and you want me to know your two prisons?”
Nov 21st, 2010 - 07:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't remember saying i never knew about the Swiss center. I didn't answer the question because it protrays absolutly no knowlege of london, it's also a peice of information someone on a tour guide of london would learn about, not someone who lives there.
“What surprise me more its that this area it is famous for the park and you just point out the Prisions????”
I pointed out the prisons because everyone in the area you claim to have lived in knows about them, it's a well known fact. An area you've lived in for two years you said.
It's well known because they are five minuite walk from eachother, practicly on the same road. Two roads away from where you claim to have lived, but somehow never knew about these buildings.
Doesn't sound strange, it's information you would get from living in the area, not google maps and wiki.
If i “must” prove myself to you, it is indeed a small world(if you did ever live here) because i live in and around the holloway area, when i was young in those four tower blocks just opposite the sobel center and near the emirates, opposite waitrose/correnet pub. And now near the odean.
The simple fact is that in the case of secession recognision is over territories the seceding state effectively controls. Argentina had government, population and economic activity in the islands when Britain recognizes independence.
Nov 21st, 2010 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentina had government, population and economic activity in the islands when Britain recognizes independence.”
Nov 21st, 2010 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, it didn't. There was nobody at all from Argentina on the Falklands when the UK recognised it
“The simple fact is that in the case of secession recognision is over territories the seceding state effectively controls”
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has no secession from Spain, you took independance you was not given it.
If Britain was not exercising administrative control over the islands in the 1820's, then why did Vernett approach the British Ambassador for permission to form a settlement there?
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, it was a secession. It's called secession when it's done without the sovereign's consent. When it's with consent it's a cession or devolution.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 02:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Read other versions. Alexander Betts, your history: On his own initiative, in 1976, Alec began his investigations on the political question of the Islands sovereignty, prompted by a Report drawn up by a British Commission informing on the non-renewable resources in the zone, more specifically: the prospect of oil reserves under the marine shelf. From here, he followed on by becoming aware of another Report, produced by Mr. Gaston de Bernhardt containing an extensive description of the historical-political and juridical aspects of the dispute. Despite having been commissioned by the Foreign Office to undertake this study, the author (Gastón de Bernhardt) left no doubts about the weaknesses of the British claim to title over the Islands. These two sources were sufficient to provoke Alec to continue and deepened his studies of the issue, which continue today.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Due to the lack of information available in the Islands, he had to build-up his own consulting library, turning to French, Spanish, Argentine and British sources in order to have access to distinct and varied versions of the political-judicial dispute, from its very beginnings. In each document, each account, each compilation or résumé, there was something new to be learned and become informed about. This opened a totally unexpected and unknown horizon, which produced a 180º turn in his traditional posture in this issue, which is that of the pro-british stance of the common inhabitant of the Malvinas.
This dramatic shift away from the traditional posture, brought him innumerable inconveniences of all imaginable kinds, but this doesn’t part him one inch from his deep-rooted conviction of the unjustness of the case and the unjustifiable british aggression of seizing a south-american territory, totally identified with the Spanish, River Plate Vice-royalty and over which Great Britain had no legitimate title whatsoever.
“ ... Alejandro Betts, a former resident of the Falkland Islands ...”
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not a great source of original historical thinking as far as I can tell. Strange how he manages to 'discover' documents that no one else can find.
“ .. Mr. Gaston de Bernhardt ....” What was his position? What were his qualifications? What sources was he relying on? Who was he?? Why can't this 'secret report' be found? Oh, because it's a secret ..... how convenient :-)
Peter Beck, British teacher found these documents.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well he must hidden them again..... not that it matters very much. One man's opinion does not an ICJ case make :-)
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinese, it was Alex Betts collusion with the Argentine invaders in 1982 and his betrayal of his friends and neighbors in their hour of need which got him innumerable inconveniences.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is a brave man, who studied the case, and although it was unpleasant for him, did not hide the truth.
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The man's a traitor !
Nov 22nd, 2010 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alex Betts just churns out the same old Tordesillas/inheritance nonsense that has shown to be complete tosh.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Part of being brave is to admit you have made a mistake.
Nov 23rd, 2010 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Since he has yet to acknowledge his involvement in the invasion and how he helped the Argentine Military Police arrest and detain known Argie dislikers and potential rabble rousers.
He even betrayed his own brother who fled to the camp.
The mans beneath contempt.
Which is a pity because what started out as a genuine concern for his family and his peoples livelihood and a belief that Argentina was the solution to the many problems the islanders faced, turned into a sycophantic ego trip and his support for military occupation and collusion in the detaining and arrest of friends and family.
He studied the case many years before the invasion, people on the islands knew his views and respected them, he did not get stick or unpleasantness for that aspect.
He got stick for his cowardly betrayal of his friends and family during their hour of need, he even abandoned his own wife and daughter. He never even went to their funeral.
And you use this man as a source?
Ok 3,500 islanders one disagrees? What % point is that?
Do you think Argentina should drop its claim based on the fact that roughly 30% of the population do not support Argentina's claim?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!