MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falkland Islands Government wants a louder voice in the world stage
The UK Coalition Government would like to see the Falkland Islands being more proactive in getting the message to the world that the Islands are a modern democracy with good above international governance standard. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAh, the fight back ! Exploding myths :-)
Dec 04th, 2010 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... recently available historical findings, ...”
Pascoe & Pepper or something even more recent ?
Please note - South Atlantic Territories - there are more than just the Falkland Islands.
All in all - about time :-))
“At the moment the Argentine Government is winning the public relations war “hands down,” says Cllr Sawle. But he hopes that with the aid of recently available historical findings:
Dec 04th, 2010 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a Brithish pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
Yes Mr Dick S. we are winning the public relations war, with the truth.
Myth, myth, myth, everything is a myth. Tell the truth, the Malvinas is a land usurped. Were never in the Soledad Island (East Falkland). NEVER. Were never in the Gran Malvina (West Falkland). NEVER. Only in the Trinidad Island (Saunders Island) You can not base their claims by a small establishment, in Port Egmont, precarious, ephemeral, illegal, that was finally abandoned.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Telling the truth is what this is all about. The Argentine's spurious version of history which is unsupported by the evidence should be shown up as lies.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1833 ONLY the trespassing Argentine garrison were instructed to leave.
Vernett's settlers were already there with British permision and they stayed. Charles Darwin visited the islands in March 1833 and recorded the people he found there. All settlers. The captain of the Argentine ship similarly recorded who he removed and who remained.
Argentina has been telling lies .... and the truth is about to come home to them!
“and the truth is about to come home to them! ” Yes Rotted
Dec 04th, 2010 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ Distant colonies are a post-imperial anachronism. Britain will have to negotiate with Argentina because the world, either at the UN or at The Hague, will insist on it. The government and media can bury their heads in the sand, but that will not make the Falklands dispute go away ”
Simon Jenkins
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/25/falklands-britains-expensive-nuisance
Simon Jenkins is a left wing reporter trying to sell his book. Further mpre - he's wrong!
Dec 04th, 2010 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0If the Falkland Islands are a colony then they're entitled to self determination under the UN Charters. However, in reality the world doesn't give a damn!
The UN will only suggest the ICJ and, if you haven't noticed, the ICJ sits at the Hague.
Either way its the ICJ ....... didn't you give a shed load of reasons on another thread as to why Argentina shouldn't trust the ICJ lol
It is about time that the islanders start speaking for themselves.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0In future whenever Argentina rejects something the islanders are doing the British government should ignore it, and allow the Falklands Government to release a message.
Fine step; talk and listen.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0If they talk and listen by theirselves they will see that the only obstacle to excersise selfdetermination is british presence in south atlantic.
Billious, you're an idiot! As I suggested at the top, the Falklands are only one of the BOT's in the South Atlantic ......... the British will not be leaving anytime soon. Invest in a map, or try -
Dec 04th, 2010 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Overseas_Territories
Read and learn !!
It's not even true...Argentina has never said if the UK removes it's base from the islands they will renounce the claim.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 03:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Billy just likes to justify the problem by blaming our troops stationed there,
“...Argentina has never said if the UK removes it's base from the islands they will renounce the claim.”
Dec 04th, 2010 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Right!, never Argentina said that; kelpers will do it in some future.
Independence is a powerfull tool for development and growth.
“Vernet settlers were already there with British permision and they stayed.” Say: resolution?, decree?, real order?????
Dec 04th, 2010 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Say: resolution?, decree?, real order?????”
Dec 04th, 2010 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0He applied for authorisation from the british government, His men were allowed to stay, one of them even becoming the Islands' governor.
“Right!, never Argentina said that; kelpers will do it in some future.”
No, they won't. Not while Argentina refuses to allow them to have self determination.
“Vernet settlers were already there with British permision and they stayed.” Say: resolution?, decree?, real order?????
Dec 04th, 2010 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your World, Marvin, your beliefs, your 'history', your dreams, will all come crashing down around you if you continue to focus on gaining Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, because it will never happen, even you are sub-consciously aware that things just aren't going to plan, and indeed if anyone in Argentina did sit down and create the plan, it's only making the Islanders more self-reliant, more self-dependent, more self-determined.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0You're only helping the Islanders develop themselves in the face of adversity, to create facilities and port services in the Falklands, and as a by product aid the UK is developing its own exploitation of natural resources in the BOT of South Georgia & South Sandwich Islands.
Thanks for helping both the Falkland Islanders and the UK make money, cheers pal, we don't owe you one, maybe you should cry for Argentina in your own beer, which you can beg, borrow, or steal from someone in Argentina, I hear thats the way things are done down your way. Just make sure it's not a warm larger, you never know who might have 'been'.
Talking about Chileans and British defending Human Rights, this is how Chile understands Human Rights:
Dec 04th, 2010 - 06:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-11917511
#6 Rotted “Either way its the ICJ ....... didn't you give a shed load of reasons on another thread as to why Argentina shouldn't trust the ICJ lol”
Dec 04th, 2010 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0About the ICJ, are you aware that The United States withdrew from compulsory jurisdiction in 1986, and so accepts the court's jurisdiction only on a case-to-case basis and Should a judge die in office, the practice has generally been to elect a judge of the same nationality to complete the term and Since the 1960s four of the five permanent members of the Security Council (France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States) have always had a judge on the Court.
15 Wireless “Thanks for helping both the Falkland Islanders and the UK make money”
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
“Elements of the UK press are focusing on a war that won't exist, allowing economic, political and diplomatic pressure from Argentina to wreak havoc on Falklands' businesses and relations with other nations in the area ”
http://www.debtbombshell.com/
You're welcome Wireless!
Do the Argies think they will get the Falklands,now they have discovered oil
Dec 04th, 2010 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9t_KDGqOmE
1764 : First French settlements...
Dec 04th, 2010 - 08:39 am - Link - Report abuse 01766 : First British settlements and Spain - de jure-
acquisition of French Colony...
1767 : Spanish -de facto- acqusitionof French Colony
under the control of Buenos Aires Colonial Administration..
1770 : Spain expel British Colony....
1771 : Anglo-Spanish peace treaty allows British
to return to Colony....
1774 : British withdrawal from Colony....
1776 : British leave plaque to assert claim on abondoned Colony..
1811 : Spanish withdrawal from Colony....
1816 : United Province of South America( later become Arg. )
declare Independence from Spain....
1820 : Flag of Argentina raised on Islands...
1828 : Argentinian settlements ..Colony fouunded....
1831 : US Warship destroy settlements.....
1832 : Argentina sends another Governor who is killed in mutiny..
1833 : British Forces return and grabbed the Islands.....
the rest are odds and ends..£..£..£..£..£..
Erm Marcos, you halfwit. Any country can accept or decline the ICJ's jurisdiction on a case by case basis. Argentina did that in 1955 when it refused to be party to a case bought by the UK. Please keep up!
Dec 04th, 2010 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0You should be flattered Argies, the British and Falkland Islands governments have finally decided that your increasingly frantic yapping and whining is actually causing a bit of a nuisence now so instead of ignoring you as they've done in the past they're going to start fighting their corner, after 28 years of effort you're finally going to get a reaction, well done.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 10:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0I fear however you may not like it, it's rather like a busy parent being continiously importuned by a misbehaving child, eventually their patience runs out and there'll be tears....
:-)
Well done FIG, about time, the world needs to know the truth behind FI history and the bogus claims/lies invented by Argentina.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ ed...
“1776 : British leave plaque to assert claim on abondoned Colony..”
Not abandoned, the British temporarily withdrew due to financial needs caused by the US war of independence. They never renounced their claim to the Islands.
“1811 : Spanish withdrawal from Colony....”
Also never renounced it's claim to the Islands.
”1816 : United Province of South America( later become Arg. )
declare Independence from Spain....“
Independence that was never recognised by Spain until 1840's
”1828 : Argentinian settlements ..Colony fouunded....“
Debatable, most of Argentine time on the Islands failed to achieve any recognisable settlement.
”1831 : US Warship destroy settlements.....
Correct, due to illegal acts of piracy and harrassment of US fishing/sealing ships.
“1833 : British Forces return and grabbed the Islands.....”
British returned to re assert it's claim that was never renounced, an act that was done peacefully and only expelled the Argentine military Garrison. All civilians were encouraged to remain & most did.
“the rest are odds and ends..£..£..£..£..£..”
I'm presuming you mean financial gain ? Not lkely, what was financialy viable in a group of barron Islands ?
#22 Denrich --
Dec 04th, 2010 - 11:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0my valiosa mate .. you omited the year of 1832 ..
have you ever heard the “ Stone ” name ? This was a “ nickname” but
his real name is unknown..who was a very important person of
British Navy Secret Services..a man who organized of 1832 mutiny..
and later becomes the comrade of bogus scientist Charles Robert Darwin..
I think that Wikileaks is more useful source than Wikipedia right now...
If you're trying to introduce a vague fifth columnist (oh how you lot love conspiracy theories and utter bollox), by discrediting one of the most important Scientists to have ever lived (I assume you're some mad creationist), then you're doomed to failure; rather like the Argentine invasion of 1982, and all Argentine efforts since to annex a friendly neighbour on the basis of falsehood and state sponsored indoctrination. I really pity you.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And so what?
Dec 04th, 2010 - 12:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MP Jeremy Browne the guys that took £70.000 money from taxpayer to improve his home?
First, the Daily Telegraph revealed how the Liberal Democrat MP had claimed nearly £70,000 of taxpayers' money to improve and kit out his second home.
The newspaper reported how Mr Browne had been claiming almost the maximum £23,000 per year of expenses on the now infamous 'John Lewis' shopping list.
The bill for Mr Browne's London flat included more than £5,000 to repair the roof, nearly £4,000 to replace some windows, almost £1,000 on a sofa and rugs, £650 for some blinds, and £180 for a picture to hang on the wall.
Other expenses claimed by Mr Browne included 38p for a Kit Kat chunky bar, £1 for a jar of vaseline cream, a £9.99 spineless Yucca Plant, a £9.99 toilet brush holder, and a poppy wreath costing £16.50.
A corrupted politician like him will voice your case??
Doesn’t look will make any good to your cause I guess
Jeremy Last train to London http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Voh_XnCYmDg
”Argie” wrote those inspired words the other day at :
Dec 04th, 2010 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2010/11/27/argentine-falklands-top-expert-ambassador-garcia-del-solar-dies-in-buenos-aires
”The English are feeling the pinch in relation to recent Argentine threats of recovering the Malvinas, and have therefore raised their security level from “Miffed” to “Peeved”.
Soon, though, it may be raised yet again to “Irritated” or even to “A Bit Crossed”.
The English have not been “A Bit Crossed” since the blitz in 1940, when tea supplies nearly ran out.
Argentines have been re-categorized from “Tiresome” to “A Bloody Nuisance”.
The last time the British issued a “Bloody Nuisance” warning level was in 1588, when threatened by the Spanish Armada…………..
I reproduce them here without his permission,…..hope he does not get mad at me :-)
Better watch out, could be that Argentinas actions could reach 'just not on' or even 'not cricket old bean' status. It could be that CFK will be in the 'rank bad hat' category by the end of the year.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Not cricket old bean' status by the end of the year !
Dec 04th, 2010 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Woooooooooooooooooooooow......................
That would be like an American DEFCON 1 !
22@ Its plaque is useless,the effect of the withdrawal of the occupation were not neutralized by the mere existence of symbols in the field of intention or “animus” that were not repeated or confirmed by official acts of protest against the continued and effective occupation by Spain of the islands.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even more, the British argument about the continuity of occupation after 1774, has been refuted by the British doctrine, among others, by Lord Phillimore, who dismissed any legal relevance to the realization of the existence of an “animus ocupandi” through a plaque or a banner left at the scene where there was a settlement.
Yes, I know, another british wrongly, 155 or 200 maybe. I lost count.
Let's get this straight. You're saying that the plaque that Britain left is useless! So, by corollary, the plaque left by the Spanish was also useless. So Argentina's claim that it has a right to the Islands by virtue of taking over Spanish territory is spurious.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, in 1833, along comes Britain again and throws invaders from a rebellious colony off some islands.
No problem, is there?
The Malvinas Islands Government is not a democracy! Only the monopoly of the island entrepreneurs have access to power. Another who thinks differently, no! Inform yourself before.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only the monopoly of the island entrepreneurs have access to power. Another who thinks differently, no! Inform yourself before.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jul/26/argentina-kirchner-wealth
@23 ed
Dec 04th, 2010 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet more conspiricy and made up twoddle, well it did have a slight Lol value, thanks for that.
@25 NicoDin
???? are you on the same topic or conveniently changing the issue as usual ?
@29 Malvinense 1833
Not debating the use of the plaque or it's modern legality, though at that time was used as a symbol that a territory had been claimed, the fact is the British never renounced it's claim, nor did Spain so as a result Argentina had no rights and their occupation illigal.
Sorry, but in Argentina democracy exists.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@30 Let's get this straight. You're saying that the plaque that Britain left is useless! Yes. Lord Phillimore, a British
Dec 04th, 2010 - 04:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, Argentina took over the territory.
So, in 1833, along comes Britain again and throws invaders from a rebellious colony off some islands.
No, you are invaders. Were never in the Soledad Island (East Falkland). NEVER. Were never in the Gran Malvina (West Falkland). NEVER. Only in the Trinidad Island (Saunders Island) You can not base their claims by a small establishment, in Port Egmont, precarious, ephemeral, illegal, that was finally abandoned.
We only invaded half of it!
Dec 04th, 2010 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British ninnies need to understand this: ¡LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS!
Dec 04th, 2010 - 05:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_9JGquDwk8pA/TC_gNGe91NI/AAAAAAAAAC8/Up-UHDQkHBk/s1600/argentina_coletas.jpg
“You can not base their claims by a small establishment, in Port Egmont, precarious, ephemeral, illegal, that was finally abandoned.”
Dec 04th, 2010 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Er...yes we can, and we do, if you reckon we cannot then take it to court.
“The Malvinas Islands Government is not a democracy! Only the monopoly of the island entrepreneurs have access to power. Another who thinks differently, no! Inform yourself before.”
I suggest you inform yourself Ron, swallowing propadanda and rubbish in tabloid columns written by people who are also ignorant and prejudiced is not the same as being informed.
Thoughts on the Late Transactions Respecting Falkland's Islands
Dec 04th, 2010 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0by Samuel Johnson
1771
”Through the whole argument of the faction runs the general errour, that our settlement on Falkland's island was not only lawful, but unquestionable; that our right was not only certain, but acknowledged; and that the equity of our conduct was such, that the Spaniards could not blame or obstruct it, without combating their own conviction, and opposing the general opinion of mankind.”
http://www.samueljohnson.com/falklands.html
Woooow…..
This Johnson guy knew how to write!!!
I truly recommend this piece to the intelligent readers.
Turnips please abstain……..
How is the FI supposed to have an independent voice, if the UK itself doesn't have one?
Dec 04th, 2010 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/dec/03/wikileaks-cables-us-special-relationship?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments
That's right, Think. Matthew Parris knows how to write as well. I'd even say that Max Hastings does. That doesn't make them right though, does it?
Dec 04th, 2010 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 01771 Lad....
Dec 04th, 2010 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 01771
another silly argument of the argies.They say the original inhabitants were expelled when the British arrived .What about the thousands of indians that were murdered and send to remote places of Argentina
Dec 04th, 2010 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0by the expedition of general roca in 1880 to the hinterland of argentina
,and the replacement of the indians by thousands of european emigrants.
Small error, Spain recognised Argentine independence in 1859, organised by the British.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Samuel Johnson? Tsk Think is that the best you can do, well try reading Hansard for that period and see the mess Lord North's Government was in.
Before 1833 Buenos Aires think british were allies against iberic revindication.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 01833; new year, an abusive act. First world power against a legal settlement of a forming new south american republic. Pillage.
@43 Again with General Roca..., the expulsion of the American Indians can not be compared with that of the Argentine in Malvinas in 1833: by then, England and Argentina were recognized each other as sovereign countries, diplomatic relations and was part of an international system itself, increasingly led by London and self-proclaimed commitment to the observance of law and respect among States.
Dec 04th, 2010 - 10:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Malvinas are Argentine and they know it.
jaja.. who wants to hear an isolete island, with people with resentments?????? the islands will be back to Argentina to an unique message to the hole world!
Dec 04th, 2010 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Argentine in Malvinas in 1833”
Dec 04th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what you are saying is, that laws 200 years old overrule the current human rights of people in this day and age?
@48 The law of the states forged at the expense of many efforts to govern their relations, is a legacy too precious to be corrupted in order to disguise the imperialist designs of any nation. Julius Goebel.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't answer my question.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do laws/treaties 200 years old overrule the current human rights of people in this day and age?
Time for an honourable settlement.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 02:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, I did. The law of the states forged at the expense of many efforts to govern their relations, is a legacy too precious to be corrupted in order to disguise the imperialist designs of any nation. Julius Goebel.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 02:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0According to Graham.
52 Malvinense 1833 (#)
Dec 05th, 2010 - 03:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0I refer you the Charter of the UN, in particular:
Article 103
In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.
Well, I've missed a couple of days but nothing very much seems to have happened.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ed - you are wrong on 1771 - the Spanish had no choice and we reasserted our cliam to ALL the islands. Marke a note of that Marvin, it's in the records.
Think, Samual Johnson was actually complaining that the British hadn't BEEN STRONG ENOUGH with the Spanish .... best read it again!
Anything else change ..... :-)
(54)
Dec 05th, 2010 - 09:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I allow myself to discord with your conclusion about the purpose and aim of Mr. Johnson thoughts……..
Anyhow, I found that piece because of its content but warmly recommended it for its style…….
( Before googleing him and founding out who he was :-)
@46, I don't think so. Please stop peddling Argentine government propaganda. British recognition of Buenos Aires/UP/Argentine independence in 1820 and diplomatic relations did not change the status of the Falkland Islands. At the time, if anything they were Spanish with Britain retaining certain rights. They certainly did not belong to BsAs/UP/Argentina. BsAs/UP/Argentina did not inherit anything from Spain. The illegal BsAs garrison was protested by Britain and then removed when it did not leave. Not a shot was fired. Most of the civilians remained and some of their descendants continue to live on the Falklands today. Anyway self determination trumps any warped Argentine version of history.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Face it: The Falklands are British. And deep down you know it - which is why you raise your spurious claim in every forum going except the only one which can make a definitive ruling.
My appologies Think, it has been some time since I read the work. In fact he is supporting the result achieved by the Government and answering the claims by a large number of others that the settlement was not sufficient. Johnson believes that the British achieved a laudible result. “ The Spaniards by yielding Falklands Island, have admitted a precedent... have sufferedd a breach to be made in the outworks of their empire ... have suffered a dangerous exception to the prescriptive tenure of their American Territories.... Such is the loss of Spain ...”
Dec 05th, 2010 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0He then goes on to question whether war was necessary for the gain!
@Roberts
Dec 05th, 2010 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Islands are not British you are absolutely wrong this is your version and official propaganda.
In fact it’s a colony formed by force, the fact who discover it or whatever doesn’t establish any right. Else Americas would be part of Italy or Spain or given back to the Aborigines now.
For that reason there is a dispute over these Islands and waters. Until now UK has been able to keep the status quo but one day no far away that will end.
And even though any international body give you the reason that would not means that we can not retake the Islands by force and set there our version of your colony with flag, new language, etc.
Its that simple the only way you can keep the Island would be by force if you like to be tough.
So here your options give back to Argentina and keep the islanders there or face one day another war that if Argentina wins UK and the Islanders loose all.
What do you prefer?
Discovery accords immense rights ... to suppose otherwise is foolish!
Dec 05th, 2010 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Force also accords immense rights - this is in the nature of the human animal!
Stupidity accords no rights ..................... hence Argentina has no rights, now try and grow up!
I see the Argie Damage control parties have deployed in full force with the usual half witted diatribes of minimal relevance to the subject matter at hand. And certainly equally minimal examples of intellect save for what their own arse can conjure up.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So here your options give back to Argentina and keep the islanders there or face one day another war that if Argentina wins UK and the Islanders loose all”
What do you prefer?
This option, Not hand back to Argentina and let islanders decide their own future, its democratic and fair.
What do you prefer?
Or you could go for your macho armchair military option! It does make me chuckle!
This is not 1982 anymore little Nicky! we don't have 80 marines and 1 MI6 Agent as the sum total of British military presence in OUR south Atlantic territories and Latin America.
Now the million dollar question? Would Argentina really start Falklands war two and look like the agressive baddy yet again? You might even do it with your friend Chavez!
Then we really would have an excuse to “militarize the South Atlantic”.
Would Argentina really really want to risk losing another war and face on the international stage?
You better get back to your paco nicodume, armchair generals is a hobby your not very good at :)
@56 Roberts Not a shot was fired. Did not fire a single shot because the boat of Pinedo was in a bad position to open fire.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 02:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In addition there was no war, and he would have appeared as the aggressor. Although you do not like and bury their heads in the sand, as ostrich Argentina inherited the islands from Spain. Great Britain did not protest anything. 1774-1829. Nothing.
1811-1820. The islands were empty. Britain, nothing. Silence.
I repeat once again, after 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 Malvinas 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 Malvinas. Great Britain did not object to these limits, or provide any reservation of rights.
On this date, ruled the Spanish Islands Francisco Gil Lemos whose successor was Ramon Caraza who ruled between 1777 and 1779. Succession until 1790 were: Salvador Medina from 1779 to 1781, Jacinto Altolaguirre 1781 to 1783, Fulgencio Montemayor 1783 to 1784, Agustín Figueroa from 1784 to 1786, Pedro de Mesa Castro 1786, Ramón Clairac 1787, Mesa de Castro again in 1788, played a Clairac second term in 1789 and Juan José Elizalde arrived in Puerto Soledad for the first time in 1790. Do not lie to their people.
Marvin - silence does not equal abandonment!
Dec 05th, 2010 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0After 1771 Spain remained under British sufference ..... nothing more!
Argentina cannot inherit what was not Spain's to give !
Nicotine,the armchair warrior,thankfully argentina as never been introduced to total war,it is something Britain unfortunately as been involved in eg air raids, real blockades, mining of shipping lanes large parts of our merchant fleet sunk.1982 you got a slap dont wish for total war
Dec 05th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_war
#61 ; Malvinense 1833
Dec 05th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well done !
Not well done ed ... wrong!
Dec 05th, 2010 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A horse is a horse
Dec 05th, 2010 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course of course
And no one can talk to a horse,
Of course
That is, of course
Unless the horse
Is the famous Mister Ed!
Go right to the source
And ask the horse
He'll give you the answer that you'll endorse
He's always on a steady course
Talk to Mister Ed!
“So here your options give back to Argentina and keep the islanders there or face one day another war that if Argentina wins UK and the Islanders loose all.”
Dec 05th, 2010 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then it will be war “some day”.
If your nation is really stupid enough to do this then you should expect attacks on your mainland.
@62 Red, silence does not equal abandonment! Reread 61.
Dec 05th, 2010 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina cannot inherit what was not Spain to give, of course if!, took possession of all that had been the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata and if not known, the Malvinas were part of the viceroyalty. More, England recognized our independence.!!!
After 1771 Spain remained under British sufference, nothing more! wrong. After 1771 England remained under Spanish sufference.
Then they left.
aren’t you guys lucky that Falklands are not aggressive, otherwise Argentina might be part of the Falklands by now lololol
Dec 05th, 2010 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong way around Marvin, as usual - instruction from the Admiralty to the Captain reclaiming the isllands from the Spanish, -“St. James's, 15th March 1771- ” ...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....“
Dec 06th, 2010 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0PLease note - ” ... against the right of his Catholic Majesty to any part of the same....” - ALL the islands Marvin.
All recorded Marvin .... real evidence, it's called :-)
Erm Malvinense, Argentina inherited NOTHING from Spain. When will you get that into your little coco? BsAs and the rest of the former viceroyalty took their independence by force. Any territory they gained was by force, not by agreement with Spain. Any Spanish history of the Falklands is completely irrelevant to the Argentina. Stop believing Argentine government propaganda and think for yourself!
Dec 06th, 2010 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mal, its quite funny that Argentina only ratified the right to inheritance 20 years after the creation of that state?
Dec 06th, 2010 - 09:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0This somewhat suggests that what occured in 1816 onwards was an illegal act.
Especially when we see that the right to inheritance was a somewhat on the spur of moment made up right.
If Argentina truly believed in the right to inheritance, then surely she would have recognized Kosovos right to inherit that section of the former republic of Yugoslavia?
As you said before, a tree created from the branch of another is a crooked tree eh Mal?
only been away a day or so & all the Argentineans have crawled out of the woodwork. (Falklands lslands govt wants louder voice ......etc etc) we really must stop making announcements like these they only encourage the malvinistas to start with their round of ASBP&L(Argentinean School Book Propaganda & Lies). no amigos, the Falklands are not yours & never will be. they are OURS!
Dec 06th, 2010 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0#72 interesting ?
Dec 06th, 2010 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Kosovo ----------->Inheritance !
well ..do we need any inheritances ?
I am sure that you know my mail adress ( log in at Mercopress) !
Hypothetical question GDR....
Dec 06th, 2010 - 11:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Considering Argentina's sole claim is through a self-declared right, you obviously need the inheritance alot.
But if Argentina really believed it, that she had the right to inherit all the lands of the vice royalty.
Then surely she wouldn't have an issue recognising that Kosovo has a right of inheritance to a piece of the former republic of Yugoslavia.
But she does.
Ergo Argentina doesn't really believe in this “inheritance” stuff and only uses it as a convenient argument when it needs to get something it wants i.e land grabs.
Turns out that Inheritance of lands also donates a right to self-determination, something Argentina has a big issue with.
I don't think Argentina has any coherent arguments to justify her claim other than Britian owns them= Britain is bad= Therefore we must haves them!
sooner or later the argies will put a statue of Margaret Tatcher on the Plaza de Mayo or Plaza del congreso,thanks to het the argies are now living in theirso called democracy
Dec 06th, 2010 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I see there are references to the agreement of 1771.
Dec 06th, 2010 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For information, it was the Spanish and not the British who proposed a face saving measure, whereby both parties would agree to leave the Falklands within 3 months. That proposal was rejected by the British and the Spanish failing to elicit support from France backed down.
Spain remained under British sufferance, not the other way around.
#75- my valioso mate R-C.
Dec 06th, 2010 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0first correction ;
Hypoteyhical question ed..
We should fix and translate your comment properly !
Considering UK's sole claim is through a self declared right,you
obviously need the inheritance a lot.
But if UK really believe it,that she had the right to inherit all the
lands of the vice royalty.
Then surely she wouldn't have an issue recognising that Australia,
N.Zl,Wls,Scots,N.Ir,Malvinas..have a right of inheritance to a piece of
the former UK Monarchy.
but she does.
Ergo UK doesn't really believe in this “ inheritance” stuff and only uses
it as a covenient argument when it needs to get something it wants i.e
land graps.
Turns out that Inheritance of lands also donates a right to self-determination,something UK has a big issue with.
I don't think UK has any coherent argument to justify her claim other
than the other people=are bad= Therefore we must have them !
Ladies & Gentlemen....
Dec 06th, 2010 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The award for the most stupid & funny post of this thread unanimously goes to......“drum roll”
'NicoDin' for astounding stupidity in post 58.
78:
Dec 06th, 2010 - 04:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh! the irony.
Lmao.
Jojojojojo!!! No oil !!!!!!
Dec 06th, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.infobae.com/politica/550578-100897-0-El-petroleo-encontrado-Desire-Malvinas-es-mala-calidad-y-van-tapar-el-pozo
hahahahahahhaha!!!
Well done Ron only a day late behind the rest of us, we don't really care, took 10 years for the North sea to become commercially viable. Only time will tell, not premature crowing by yourself.
Dec 06th, 2010 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you forget the bit which made mention of Rockhopper's commercially viable discovery?
Nope?
HAHAHAHAA so there is oil!
78 GDR? Are you suffering a stroke or a sudden loss of intelligence?
His own psychologist?
Dec 06th, 2010 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well done Ron only a day late behind the rest of us
Dec 06th, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yep later ron, the cpl jones of the malvenists
Ed - no idea what you're talking about as it is Argentina that tries to use the inheritance argument!
Dec 06th, 2010 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can't inherit what papa no longer owns !
@70 Red,Very good. Entitled to all the islands? Just arrived in Port Egmont. Never in the Gran Malvina. Never in Soledad.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 01:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0It goes without saying that they were late. They were the French.
What rights?
@71 Latin America did not inherit anything from Spain?
Yes, it was inherited by force as did the colonies of North America with the British. Nowhere in the South Pacific and South Atlantic were British colonies. Oh what a coincidence!!! only in the Malvinas!!
Ah, my coco is well jejeje.
@ 77 Justin the British withdrew, not Spanish. True? All these words are crumbling under the evidence.
Marvin - you are proving yourself to be an idiot. The 1771 'retreat' by Spain meant that sovereignty stayed with the British. The quote clearly shows that Spain was to be dismissed if its representative attempted to make a claim for Spain!
Dec 07th, 2010 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina could not inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain because Spain did not own them. British sovereignty had the greatest claim, as was indicated by the action of 1833.
As for 'evidence' ... you don't provide any, only opinion!
I've told you before, those school text books aren't doing you any good ! :-)
Time for an honourable settlement.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 03:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0#89: Indeed.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 07:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0But it seems all must wait for the proposed reforms to the UN, Security Council and International Court of Justice before Argentina is willing to take its case to the ICJ for a verdict
We fought a war over the islands and won ... can't get much more honourable than that !
Dec 07th, 2010 - 08:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0(90) Dominguito querido!
Dec 07th, 2010 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0You finally got it!!!
100% Right lad!!!
Argentina wants to load the UN, load the Security Council and load the ICJ ..... lol
Dec 07th, 2010 - 09:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Unlikely then :-)
Not only Argentina, you “British” lad...............
Dec 07th, 2010 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmm.......Coming to “Think” about it...............
“British”.....
“We are British”.....
“Them Islands are British”.....
Sounds as hollow and fake as the last “Empire” to fall....
“Soviets”
“We are Soviets”
“Half the word is Soviet”
;-)))
Nearly right think, just one little detail, we're one of these awkward places that didn't want secession. If it's OK for all the former British and Soviet controlled states to choose their own future then it's OK for us too, Bummer huh?
Dec 07th, 2010 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Well, you got one thing right, Think .... “them islands ARE British” :-)
Dec 07th, 2010 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whilst its clearly pointless as Think is so indoctrinated he can't “think” any other way, one last time.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 11:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British Empire is no more, it does not exist, it has gone the way of the Norwegian Blue. Britain chose to divest itself of its Empire, it granted independence, most former colonies still have ties to Britain through the Commonwealth of Nations.
A number of small territories remain as a rump. The stated policy since the early 1960s has been to grant independence on request, assist any territory that wishes to achieve independence to achieve that goal and where a territory is not ready or does not yet wish for independence to devolve Government onto local institutions. Britain's only responsibility is for defence and foreign relations, the rest is devolved.
The Falkland Islands were granted devolved Government rather late, as devolution was delayed by the FCO for fear of causing problems with Argentina. The position has always been that the wishes of the islanders remain paramount, self-determination being a fundamental human right guaranteed by the UN Charter.
It has nothing to do with Empire, or colonialism.
The UN defines colonialism as the imposition of an alien culture upon a native peoples. Argentina denies the islanders have any rights and would impose itself upon them in the pursuit of an illogical irredentist claim to sovereignty, self-invented for the purposes long forgotten in Argentina and self-reinforcing in its mendacious re-writing of history. Argentina would happily create a colonial situation and as such its position in every respect is hypocritical and mendacious.
Leave the islands alone, let the islanders decide for themselves.
#87 No the British did not withdraw. The British Government unilaterally withdrew its outpost in 1776 but the British presence remained. The evidence is in your own archives.
(96) Hoyt
Dec 07th, 2010 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0If you, by “Them Islands”, are refering to the “Ynysoedd Prydain”, “Eileanan Bhreatainn”, “Éire agus an Bhreatain Mhór” or “British Isles”........ you could, arguably, have a point............
Otherwise not......
#98
Dec 07th, 2010 - 11:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Incorrect,
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Indian Ocean Territory, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Falkland Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and finally, last but not least, the Turks and Caicos Islands.
All British Overseas Territories, who remain so because that is what the people living there want. Thats the point.
Another case of 'you saying something makes it true' think?
Dec 07th, 2010 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Otherwise not......”
We Falkland Islanders say they are British...so there!
:-p
The British have Isles .... everywhere :-)
Dec 07th, 2010 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(100) Westi
Dec 07th, 2010 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0………And that’s exactly why you squatterss will have to move…….physically or mentally......... or both.
Not your choice I’m afraid……………….
El Thicko spouted: “Not your choice I’m afraid………………. ”
Dec 07th, 2010 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Again to make the point, Argentina would happily deny self-determination and impose a colonial situation in the South Atlantic.
Another option is given that something like 90% of the Argentine population emigrated to Argentina after the Falkland Islanders went to the Falklands, and noting that the Falkland Islanders displaced no indigenous people (unlike the Argentines), we apply Argentine logic to the people of Argentina and all of the squatters on the main land move back to whatever Spanish, Italian or any other European country they originally came from and hand the land back to its indigenous people.
After all that would be fairer.
Wrong Think - it's entirely their choice. The British have said so and todate there doesn't appear to be another force strong enough to change that. Nothing looming either !
Dec 07th, 2010 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course it´s their choice and that´s why they are the target of argentine measures.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina shows them two paths, seduction in the ´90 that was a failure because of kelpers intransigence to advance towards a solution; and cohercion in actual times, a path still in work.
As it is “their choice”, kelpers are in the line of fire supporting with their body, business and interests the british colonial position. Good for britain to have such lambs as their defenders.
Coercion and bullying a tiny island community, thats about the strength of it. Can't win the argument, won't go to the ICJ, try to use force.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fortunately no one really notices.
And Billy you'd use force to create a colonial situation, we have none. The islands were granted self-governing status in 1985, we still look to increase their autonomy. The article is actually about the Falkland Islands Government taking more responsibility for international affairs.
So what 'choice' would nominally get Argentina off our backs then Billy? I suspect that any 'choice' that would be acceptable to Argentina would be one where we're either in your pocket or at your mercy, neither prospect appeals thanks.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“So what 'choice' would nominally get Argentina off our backs then Billy?”
Dec 07th, 2010 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think that I answer you that many times; kick your masters back to britannia, excersise real selfdetermination and negotiate with argentina the terms of your independence in a south atlantic with no british presence; that´s my humble opinion.
Billy,
Dec 07th, 2010 - 02:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The FIG has no “masters” but has full self-government over the Falkland Islands. The British presence is purely there to defend and deter against further Argentine aggression. The “Not your choice I’m afraid” kind of aggression, like coercion.
Why do they have to negotiate their independence with Argentina? What you're suggesting is a retrograde step. They have independence in all but name now.
And if you wanted a South Atlantic without a “British presence”, well then you shouldn't have invaded then. Because prior to 1982 the sole “British Presence” was 40 Royal Marines. And prior to 1965 it was zero, NP8901 was established following the hijacking incident.
Does Argentina condemn the armed hijacking in 1965? Nope, it gives the terrorists state pensions.
“excersise real selfdetermination and negotiate with argentina the terms of your independence in a south atlantic with no british presence; that´s my humble opinion”
Dec 07th, 2010 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not very humble Billy, who're Argentinians to tell us what we should do? Negotiate with you....over what prey? it's none of your business....except that you will of course maintain your claim to sovereignty of the Falklands, do you think we've forgotten what you've done in the past? the onus is on you to gain our trust...and you're not doing much of a job of it at the moment are you?
#109 +#110
Dec 07th, 2010 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0my valioso mates ..
Malvinas Islanders have to declare their Independence from
UK Monarchy by using self-determination rights...
and change their flag ( sheep figure !..what a shame !)...
after UN's recognising..we may negotiate them .
You are right Ed; independence seems to be the most sensible solution to this dispute.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have one thing clear, kelpers are only a target, a tool to make the british leave south atlantic; that´s the goal: a south atlantic free of british presence.
If they trust or not is their problem; Argentina don´t want the life, homes, business or freedom from kelpers. Argentina only want to see britain leaving the region and negotiate the terms to end the dispute. I´m sure that if kelpers ask their british masters to leave they will do it, and then we will negotiate a definitive pact to stablish our boundaries and our relationships. Please add in that pact a clause saying that Darwin peninsula would be an historic argentine national park in kelpernation soil.
Its not independence if Argentina is telling them what to do and how to do it.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And if the British left, Argentine warships would be straight over the horizon with the invasion fleet.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No thanks.
“I have one thing clear, kelpers are only a target, a tool to make the british leave south atlantic; that´s the goal: a south atlantic free of british presence.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they trust or not is their problem; Argentina don´t want the life, homes, business or freedom from kelpers. Argentina only want to see britain leaving the region and negotiate the terms to end the dispute.”
That is an absolutle and complete blatant massive great lie. Argentina has NEVER(Unless you have a link proving this, from your President) said that it's claim of the islands was only to get rid of the british in the south atlantic.
Argentina's claim is SOVEREIGN RIGHTS over the islands, and people.
Furthermore, the british leaving the falklands would not mean the end of the british in the south atlantic.
Of couse argentina is claiming sovereignty right (only because of british presence) but also argentina is asking for negotiations.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In my view a negotiated solution would be kelpers independence; british leaving south atlantic and argentina droping her claims over malvinas. But I can´t give you links, that situation would only be possible at the negotiation table; if there is no negotiation the claim will stay as ever.
The UN recognises us as a British Overseas Territory ed, that's good enough for us.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Malvinas Islanders have to declare their Independence from
UK Monarchy by using self-determination rights... ”
We 'have to' do no such thing mate. Anyhow, say we did choose to become independant...“we may negotiate”....is hardly reassuring coming fom an Argentinian, I've said it before and I'll say it again, we don't trust you. Trust is something that is earned and you've not done anything to earn it. Your claim to sovereignty of the Falklands and attempts to sabotage our economy only strengthen our resolve to have nothing to do with you under any circumstances.
Oh yeah and Billy...
“Argentina only want to see britain leaving the region and negotiate the terms to end the dispute”
what 'terms' would that be then (considering that achieving sovereignty of the Falklands is written into your constitution)?
”what 'terms' would that be then (considering that achieving sovereignty of the Falklands is written into your constitution)?”
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0easy solution mate.
UK leaves the region and recognices Argentina´s sovereignty.
In the same act Argentina gives that sovereignty to kelpernation.
End of the dispute and the start of an era of peace, cooperation and development for continentals and islanders.
BS Argentina is claiming sovereignty, because in the past an irredentist claim was invented to invent an outside “enemy” to unite the people. Peron admitted as much, when he stated that he didn't believe in the claim to the “Malvinas” but it was useful to unite the people.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina is not prepared to negotiate, it demands “negotiations” but only on its pre-determined agenda.
And BTW, the Falkland Islands Government has offered to talk with Argentina but Argentina rejected talks, insisting it would only talk to the British Government.
Your own Government rejects this as a solution.
Britain would be happy to see an independent Falklands, it would be happy to leave the Falklands.
Recognise the only obstacle here is Argentina and its claim. And its a claim it has no confidence in, it refuses to have it examined in a court capable of delivering a definitive judgement.
Argentina's claims is nothing to do with sovereignty, its about Argentine internal politics nothing more.
The claim stays because Argentina has backed itself into a corner with its domestic agenda. Its spent so long manufacturing an illogical irredentist claim based on a tissue of lies it can't admit the truth anymore. People like you are so indoctrinated with nationalism, you can't admit that the responsibility lies with Argentina. Argentina created and sustains this dispute. Its childish, infantile, spiteful and vindictive.
Quit with the grand standing, no one is impressed and we could see the Emperor was naked a long time ago.
....when we'd promptly instigate (very) close ties with the UK, including allowing them to use a certain abandoned airbase and port as a military facility if our new 'friends' on the continent get uppity about it. Back to square one except you'll have played all your cards, you are not going to get what you want so you may as well give it up now.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 05:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0118 Billy Hayes:
Dec 07th, 2010 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your views are not the same as your governments, not once has your government said that if the british left they would allow the islanders to go independant. You're a liar.
Also:
“easy solution mate.
UK leaves the region and recognices Argentina´s sovereignty.
In the same act Argentina gives that sovereignty to kelpernation.”
LOL. “Argentina does not want sovereignty, the solution is to give Argentina sovereignty and then we can negotiate.”
lmao. classic.
About post (119)
Dec 07th, 2010 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And yet another ”convenient little lie” from Mr. Just In Kuntz….....
He declares:
”Peron admitted as much, when he stated that he didn't believe in the claim to the “Malvinas” but it was useful to unite the people.”
I say:
Suuure………………………….Suuuuuuuure.........................
As true as that Churchill didn’t believe for a second that Britain could win WWII, and as a matter of fact he secretly wished for Hitler to win.
How strange that dozy Argies still can't accept the truth. Time and again, new ignoramuses turn up with their pre-determined views and an intention to change history by shouting at it and refusing to understand things written in the primary language of the planet.
Dec 07th, 2010 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then there are the internet terrorists, such as Twinky, who will, sooner or later, go the way of Assange. Arrested, imprisoned, extradited. Possibly never to be heard of again.
Reminds one of the “Dirty War”. Where was that?
my valioso Islander mates !
Dec 07th, 2010 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas Islanders have to declare their Independence from
UK Monarchy by using self-determination rights..
and change their flag ( sheep figure !...what a shame !)...
after UN's recognising..we may negotiate them.
@124
Dec 07th, 2010 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0who's going to force them? you? don't make me laugh.
“who's going to force them?”
Dec 07th, 2010 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The money and the chances of development they are losing because of the dispute.
@124
Dec 07th, 2010 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0after UN's recognising..we may negotiate them.
Thats good of you,what a ed case
#122
Dec 07th, 2010 - 08:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Bill Hunter-Christie, UK diplomat in BA in the 1940s, direct quote. He also describes dancing with Eva Peron as like dancing with a Tiger on heat.
Think, being an inveterate liar, I can see why you would presume others would lie. But every time you've accused me of lying you've ended up with egg on your face. Don't you have a rock to hide under?
As usual you can't rebut the arguments, you attack the person. You're proven liar, you have zero credibility, your continued personal attacks merely demonstrate what a morally bankrupt, hypocritical asshole you are.
Chuckle Chuckle
Dec 07th, 2010 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A Wikileak from the forties........ from some UK diplomat.........direct imagined by Just In Kuntz......
Chuckle Chuckle.......
Matter of public record, El Thicko.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Didn't you just get caught telling lies again?
Ah yes, typical El Thicko ploy of trying to rubbish anything that exposes him for being a liar. Don't you have a rock to crawl under.
@124
Dec 08th, 2010 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0is there an echo in here?
#131
Dec 08th, 2010 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0They've run out of arguments so they're repeating old ones, hoping we won't notice.
Chuckle Chuckle....
Dec 08th, 2010 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Public record Just In Kuntz's head.....
Billious, you seem to be struggling with the fundamental flaw in your proposal which is that if the Falkland Islanders declare their independence then the British WILL STILL be in the south atlantic. We will not be giving up South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands ... you can bet on it!
Dec 08th, 2010 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Justin - produce your source and that'll shut the old man up!
ed - you appear to need medical help!
Good morning all. Falklands still British? Yes! Marvelous :-)
Too late Redhoyt, already produced it. Having done so the liar has to try and hide his lies.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@88 Red, Ah well, while the Spanish ruled the islands. That opinion! They left!
Dec 08th, 2010 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0In 1810, the people of the Río de la Plata Vice-royalty decided to liberate themselves from the colonialism imposed on them from Madrid, and began its fight for independence. After three years of battles, the loyal Spanish forces were finally defeated in Montevideo surrendering to the Commanding Officer of the insurgent troops, Carlos María de ALVEAR on the 20th June 1814. Two years later, at the Tucumán Congress of 1816, the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata formally declared independence from Spain. In accordance with the principle recognised by International Law, territorial succession, the emerging State, claimed all the territory that had been declared as being within the borders of the Río de la Plata Vice-royalty constituted in 1776, which included the Malvinas. What's more, the Spanish Governor of the Islands was directly subordinated to the Vice-royal in Buenos Aires.
The principle of territorial succession establishes that when a colony becomes independent, the new State inherits the territory that it possessed prior to decolonisation. Finally, Argentina exercised effective possession of the territory between 1820 and the 3rd of January 1833 when the argentine colonists settled at Port Louis or Puerto Soledad, the same site as the old Spanish settlement, where forceful expelled by a contingent of british naval officers and troops. Therefore, Argentina conserves her indisputable right of prior title being superior to that of the british pretension to claim the sovereignty of the Islands as though it was undeniable british. Alexander J. Betts
And you read a lot of the lies of Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper
Time for an honourable settlement.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0I support the settlement Graham.-
Dec 08th, 2010 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britatin leaving south atlantic and argentina granting kelper independence.
About(119) (122) (128) (129)(130) (133)(134) and (135)
Dec 08th, 2010 - 05:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Chuckle chuckle
You are losing control over all your “small convenient lies” ......huhhhh? Public record?........
Where?.......
Just in Kuntz'es Head.
Ha ha ha.....
You are getting old, very old..........
.. effective possession of the territory between 1820 and the 3rd of January 1833 ...”
Dec 08th, 2010 - 05:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong Marvin - Vernett was there with OUR permission! And we can prove it!
You are trying to compare Betts to Pascoe & Pepper lol. They not only know what they are talking about, they quote their sources to prove it. The sources are the evidence Marvin, the rest is just opinion. And with Betts it's the wrong opinion.
Try taking it to the ICJ :-)
Billious, we have an honourable settlement, we've thrown the Spanish out once, and the Argentines out twice. 1833 finished it .... the Falkland Islands are British ...... and will remain so as long as the islanders wish it.
Give me some evidence to show I'm wrong!
Justin - I couldn't find your reference, please repeat.
“In accordance with the principle recognised by International Law, territorial succession, the emerging State, claimed all the territory that had been declared as being within the borders of the Río de la Plata Vice-royalty constituted in 1776, which included the Malvinas. What's more, the Spanish Governor of the Islands was directly subordinated to the Vice-royal in Buenos Aires.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The principle of territorial succession establishes that when a colony becomes independent, the new State inherits the territory that it possessed prior to decolonisation.”
There was no such principle in 1816, 1820, 1829, 1833, or at any time during the 19th century
Thanks Bill. However, Braitain has no need to leave unless it wants to, or the Islanders want it to. It's part of hounarable. Given “our” Malvinas, to which we are also entitled.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0And that requires “talking”.
(140) Hoyt
Dec 08th, 2010 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course you cannot find “Mr. Just in Kuntz'es head” reference……….
There ain’t any…
It’s not rocket science…
Mercopress archives are easily searched and I have been her less than six months…..
Draw your own conclusions………..
@140 Red, Vernett was there with OUR permission! And we can prove it!
Dec 08th, 2010 - 01:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0say, resolution, decree, royal order????
Do not compare anything, the difference is that Betts tells the truth.
He would not lie against his people. Betts, cite his sources to prove it. And with Pascoe and Pepper it's the wrong opinion.
@141 There was no such principle in 1816, 1820, 1829, 1833, or at any time during the 19th century. Tell that to the United States.
HMS Gloucester had a warm welcome in Valparaiso-Chile,
Dec 08th, 2010 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Great !! the Unasur is a paper tiger
Tarud said a group of parliamentarians from the coalition will Alfredo Moreno Chancellor consulted on this background, noting that “Argentina was informed of the fact and the Argentine government did not object or objections.” Argentina also has very clear the position of Chile on the Malvinas Islands, which is to support the territorial claim of the neighboring country.”
Dec 08th, 2010 - 07:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0there is a big comercial interchange between Chile and the Falklands ,there are also many Chileans living in the Falklands.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There are plans to open an Chilean consulate in Port Stanley next year,I like to see the face of Twitterman when that happens.
You have a problem with size and proportions mate.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“big comercial interchange between Chile and the Falklands”
Chile its very easy to press just a boycott over some business like Jumbo, Disco, Vea, Easy, Blaisten, Falabella (Owned by Hörst Paulmann AKA Cencosud Chilean group) in Argentina and that would be enough to call their attention about how serious we are about the matter.
We represent 50% of their global income more than in Chile and they are registered as the 3er largest group in Chile. U$s 4 bn turn over.
Chilean assets is Argentina are around U$s 22bn 14% of Chile GDP not counting exports.
I think that Mr. Hörst Paulmann and others will finance a new invasion to the Islands in such event.
They will loose billions of dollars to support 2000 Islanders with a microscopic trade of... How much?
Now can you come back to reality please?
If Argentina sneezes, Chile catches the cold mate. And not otherwise.
this is just a typical argie argument , the chileans have also big trade interest with Great Britain,and the USA,argentina isnot relevant for them as they do not need anymore the argie gas.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982 ,the Chilean forces were stronger than the argie forces ,and an eventual military aventure would have ended in serrious setbacjk of the argie forces,this was said bi general Balza ,a well known argie general.
Any how the Chileans will continue to support the Falklanders ,and thei war and merchant vessels.
@ nicodim talking bollox
Dec 08th, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why then did you not use your superority to boycott chile during the beagel channel dispute ,which you lost after going to icj by the way
In spite that the history is always submitted to distortions, omitions or diferent interpretations, there are some historic facts that can't be questioned.
Dec 08th, 2010 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the u.k. had any sovereign right on the islands in 1833, that was only on the gran malvina (west falkland), because there was garrison there for 8 years untill 1774, however those rights were very arguable, because after 1774, and untill 1833, there was no any british authority on the island, during 59 years, there were just sporadic settlemenst of british sailors, but those settlements didn't give any sovereign right to the u.k., because they didn't exclude spain from the archipelago, like the international right exacts for this kind of issue.
Regarding what happened of 1833, i dont think it was an act of force, the british had much more capacity of fire, we were just an incipient nation, and finally john onslow could deprive our authoritys from the islands, it was a total violation of our rights, accept it or not, because we were trying to exercise unless in a precarious way, our rights on the malvinas, as sucessors of spain.
Beside, the fact that my country didn't clame since 1850-1885, and 1888-1908, does not make loss our rights, because for the international right, when one state violates openly the rights fo another state, the requeriment of the protest is not necesary, this is argued by british professors, lauterpacht, mc gibbon, and kelsen.
On the other hand, the u.k. can't even invoke acquisitive prescription, because one of the requeriments to invoke that institution, is that the ocupation of the territory does not have to be questioned by another state, that's not the case of the malvinas.
So m.r sawle, be serious and dont tell only what is convenient for you posture, omitions are as shamefull as lies.
Beside read resolution 2353, wich refers gibraltar's situation, and you'll know what the general assembly affirms about territorial integrity.
#144 - “ .. Vernett was there with OUR permission! And we can prove it!
Dec 08th, 2010 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0say, resolution, decree, royal order????...”
Permission obtained via the British Ambassador in BA. That is sufficient. Part of the deal was that Vernett would send regular reports to the British authorities about life on the islands and this he did. When his business finally collapsed, it was Britain that he went to seeking compensation!
Neither the opinion of pascoe& Pepper or Betts is worth anything unless supported by evidence. Pasco & Pepper identify their sources so that the reader can understand their reasoning. Betts does not. Pascoe & Pepper therefore come out in front together with any historian that clearly shows the evidence.
There was no principle then, quite why anyone should tell the US about it is beyond me! Not that I think they'd care - they are in the 'might is right' camp.
#146 - at one time I seem to remember reading that Chile had a consulate on the Falkland Islands? certainly in 1982 they had no policy supporting Argentina :-)
Axel - you need to read more about the way the dispute of 1771 worked out. It was clear from the documentation that Britain laid claim to ALL the islands and that was the message to be given to Spain (the losers) if they objected. we didn't exclude Spain, they were there with our permission after all. That's why we came close to war in 1771. And what international rights are you talking about? Name them, identify which 18th/19th century law books that they can be found in!
You did not have any rights in 1833 and no inheritance, so we threw you out!
The rights of the victor to the spoils is well established in International Law and has been since Roman times.
As I've mentioned elsewhere UN Resolutions are only recomendations! Nothing more. Check it out.
You are a complete ignorant mate where are you from?
Dec 08th, 2010 - 11:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina its the 1-2 destination for their investment abroad.
Argentina was its First destination for Chile capital after recently take the first position Brazil and rising Peru and Colombia now.
“argentina isnot relevant for them as they do not need anymore the argie gas “
Chile still relays on 10% of imports from Argentina and according with the Chile Embassy in Buenos Aires for the period 1990 to June 2008 Chilean companies invested more than U$s 15bn.
“for more than 18 years – the main recipient of direct investment coming from Chile, accumulating in the period 1990 2008, an amount of US $ 15, 411 million, figure that represents the 34 percent of the total invested by the country overseas”
“In 1982 ,the Chilean forces were stronger than the argie forces ”
If you think that Chile can win a war against Argentina I would like to know what are you drinking mate.
Don’t consume your own propaganda Chile Nominal GDP its much less than the GDP of Buenos Aires 230bn at the moment 90bn the City and 140 the Province.
Again 20bn dollars hole in Chile’s economy will be more devastasting than the earthquake.
And by the way you still relay on gas from our gasoducts coming from Bolivia. http://www.emol.com/noticias/economia/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=424838
And last and not least see how hilarious you are “CHILE VS. USA POR EL CONTROL MUNDIAL” (Chile Vs USA for the control of the World” haha “Chile es el próximo centro estratégico a nivel Mundial” (Chile next world strategic center) huahahahahahaha.
You have a plan do you http://www.emol.com/noticias/economia/detalle/detallenoticias.asp?idnoticia=424838
@ stick up your junta
Ah mate your brain is being consuming by what you are smoking. In 1982 Chile investment in Argentina was none was contrast to today dependency of Argentina. Anyway we were near to invade them do you remember?
152@ Red, say, resolution, decree, royal order???? speak up!!!
Dec 09th, 2010 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why then Luis Vernet, Marcelo Vernet, (descendants) do not support the UK?. Of course, was there to seek compensation if they ruined everything with his invasion.
Betts, has no reason to lie to their people. I'd like a debate between Betts and Argentine historians versus Pascoe and Pepper. Pascoe and Pepper will not hold his lie. I want a debate now.!
Permission is enough ... or are you struggling with the concept. Vernett's ancestors are hardly relevant lol.
Dec 09th, 2010 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for your debate :-)
If you actually read anything other than simplistic school text books you would know that the Pascoe & Pepper document was in answer to the Argentine Historians paper presented in London the year before. Your historians made a statement. Pascoe & Pepper replied .... we are still awaiting the next Argentine response .... it seems to be a long time coming!
the probñem with the argies is that they have an enormous inferiority complex with respect europeans and north americans,they try to compensate this with ultra nationalistic arguments , while they are the laughing stock of their more civilized neighbours
Dec 09th, 2010 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0156 expat, Are you one of the few Pinochet fans from Punta Arenas that lost bussiness with Malvinas? I think you can do much better with your neighbors next door.
Dec 09th, 2010 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0What is your opinion about this tragic disaster today? I think you can read spanish...can you?
http://trincheradelaimagen.blogspot.com/2010/12/chile-estamos-muertos-en-la-carcel-de.html
@expat
Dec 09th, 2010 - 04:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0“the probñem with the argies is that they have an enormous inferiority complex with respect europeans and north americans” Ha ha ha ha
“,they try to compensate this with ultra nationalistic arguments , while they are the laughing stock of their more civilized neighbours” Hua haha haha haaaaaaaapuagh hahah
Do you mean inferiority complex and more civilized neighbours like this????
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfXt9FIQAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfXt9FIQAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfXt9FIQAw
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAfXt9FIQAw
Recent research has shown that people afflicted with an inferiority complex can be easily identified from their unhealthy addiction to youtube :-)
Dec 09th, 2010 - 05:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hmmmmm…
Dec 09th, 2010 - 06:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Total silence from Just in Kuntz’es head …………………About his latest “little convenient lie” (at 119) where he “quotes” a certain Bill Hunter-Christie, saying that Peron didn’t believe in the Falklands cause!
What would happen if I Google : Falklands Peron “Bill Hunter-Christie” ?
Let’s see…………….
Oooooops................................
The ”comment” exists in various forums!
Always written by the same person!
Justin Kuntz
Chuckle chuckle….
I guess that’s what he considers ”Public Record”…………..
@158 Nico, what you have dug up doesn't make sense. full marks for finding it though. and it has very little to do with OUR Falklands.
Dec 09th, 2010 - 07:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0@160 Think, you seem highly amused. a lot of chuckling going on. still can't be bad if you're happy & you still won't get the Falklands!
Ohhh Isolde...
Dec 09th, 2010 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0You always make me chuckle :-)
I'll have to settle for the Malvinas then?
Whatever those are?
Dec 09th, 2010 - 08:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0As the 'Malvinas' are a piece of Argentine fiction you're welcome to them think, I understand they are located somewhere between Narnia and Atlantis.
Dec 09th, 2010 - 09:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0:-)
Ahoy.....
Dec 09th, 2010 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly!
The mythica l“ Islas Pepys”......
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/theroyalfamily/8192767/Tuition-fees-protesters-attack-car-carrying-Prince-Charles-and-the-Duchess-of-Cornwall.html
Dec 09th, 2010 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HAHAHAHAHAHA CAMILA'S FACE IS PRICELESS, I'M SCARED, I'M SCARED, HELP! HELP! THANK GOD BRITISH PEOPLE ARE AS CIVILIZED AS WESTISBEST.
THANK GOD BRITISH PEOPLE ARE AS CIVILIZED AS WESTISBEST.
Dec 09th, 2010 - 10:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe the police should kill the protesters,like they do in Argentina
http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/53522
Oh no! the window was cracked too! Where's Justin to denounce this “terrorists”!! Chapa y pintura...and a diaper for the future king needed :-)
Dec 09th, 2010 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.cnn.com/2010/WORLD/europe/12/09/uk.tuition.protests/index.html?hpt=C1
Hey Justin terrorist Abdelbaset al-Megrahi still alive! So kind of UK Gov. to allowed this gentelman(killer of 270 innocent civilians) back to his beloved homeland!
”US embassy cables that show London's full support for the early release of Abdelbaset al-Megrahi.
Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, made explicit and ”thuggish“ threats to halt all trade deals with Britain and harass embassy staff if Megrahi remained in jail, the cables show. At the same time ”a parade of treats“ was offered by Libya to the Scottish devolved administration if it agreed to let him go....”
Argies lend a hand to fellow south americans
Dec 09th, 2010 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.buenosairesherald.com/BreakingNews/View/53525
Sticky, always obsessed with Villa 31, Bolivian, Peruvian, Chilean and Paraguayan immigrants plus Drugs.
Dec 10th, 2010 - 01:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I just wonder if you are not the guy who brings them here. Are you?
@ 155 Red, The answer is already written in many books of Argentine and foreign historians. Take the trouble to look and read.
Dec 10th, 2010 - 02:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0You might be surprised.
Marvin - that's no answer at all!
Dec 10th, 2010 - 05:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am often surprised, but not about the history of the Falkland Islands.
@166
Dec 10th, 2010 - 07:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very pertinant Xbarilox, well done. You can go and play with your crayons now.
@154 Malvinense 1833
Dec 10th, 2010 - 11:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Betts, has no reason to lie to their people. I'd like a debate between Betts and Argentine historians versus Pascoe and Pepper. Pascoe and Pepper will not hold his lie. I want a debate now.!”
Bett's has plenty of reason to lie, he was a traitor, he betrayed his own people & family by helping the Argentine invadors due to being a coward.
As for dabate, well you will find that was the reason behind Pascoe & Peppers research...
“ On 3 December 2007 a seminar entitled “Argentine Rights and Sovereignty”, organised by the Argentine Embassy, was held at the London School of Economics, at which the Argentine claim to the
Falkland Is lands was publicly presented in Britain for the first time.”
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
In Spanish...
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
REDHOYT. EXPAT.
Dec 10th, 2010 - 02:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REDHOYT: The fact that vernet had you permission was irrelevant, he didn't have any legitimity to do that, he wasen't the president from the country, he was the governor from the islands, maybe it was more convenient for hes interests that the islands were british.
Beside you can't ignore that the islands were submitted to the jurisdiction from the viceroalty, like it or not, as sucessors of the spanish kingdom, we had right to occupy unless the soledad island (east falkland), if you like to invoke international right, you should know that when one country declares it's independence, it inherites the territory inside of the limits of the former colony, this is argued by british professor, m. akehurst from the university from keele.
Accepted or not, we had legitimate rights to occupy the soledad island.
I respect your posture, but i prefer to take as valid the knowleadge from academic people, that's not your case.
EXPAT: We dont need argentina to become into the most powerfull country of the world to be proud of being argentine, the place were some is borned, is sacred, no matter if you were born in denmark, or in namibia.
I am sure that you feel very proud for being borned in the last place of the planet, wich has an insignificant relevancy for all the rest of the world, exept for us and the u.k., but it doesn not mena that you would not choose it many other times to live, if you could.
You should review that idiot concept that you have about us, and leave behind too despective comments and discrimination.
Poor countries and development nations can feel proud of their countries too, like people from first world countries, we dont need feel superior or inferior than any one.
@ Denrich, Thanks for the data. But you take the trouble to read other sources to compare.
Dec 10th, 2010 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A single point. look. That is untrue. Such a reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement. The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated: … that he engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands. In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute –
both countries’ rights were left untouched, Britain’s as well as Spain’s.
It's hilarious. You believe that the Spanish king in HIS statement is going to leave unless the sovereignty of both countries?
The Spanish king in HIS statement made an express reservation of sovereignty, to safeguard its right above. Not so, the English king.
The restitution of the Port and Fort Egmont was demanded and granted as compensation for the injury to the British flag. It mentions only the restitution of the Port and Fort Egmont.
No mention of restitution of the islands. Neither Saunders Island.
Pascoe and Pepper to go with his lie elsewhere.
“like it or not, as sucessors of the spanish kingdom”
Dec 10th, 2010 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like it or not Axel, you inherited NOTHING from Spain. Absolutely nothing.¡Nada! ¿Me entiendes?
Your “claim” falls at the first hurdle...
http://www.falklands.info/history/histarticle19.html
Dec 10th, 2010 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I quote
Then Peron chose June the 10th to be “Malvinas Day”, when he was rejuvenating the Argentine claim - as he told Bill Hunter-Christine “to take the people's minds off internal problems”.
If you google Peron and Bill Hunter-Christie its the second hit, I just checked. Would we appear to have caught the inveterate liar El Thicko, lying yet again. Can we expect the lying El Thicko to apologise for lying again.
Margot,
http://www.falklands.inf
Al Megrahi slipped into a coma and he has been on life support. If you wish to trample on the grief of his family, or that of his victims, continue but you do so in bad taste. I won't be indulging you at this time.
Quotes from Justin articles:
Dec 10th, 2010 - 05:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The development comes SIXTEEN months after he was released on ‘compassionate grounds’ by the Scottish Government after being diagnosed with prostate cancer and supposedly given THREE months to live”
“But there was confusion last night after the Scottish authorities charged with monitoring Megrahi’s health said claims of his imminent demise were ‘unfounded’”
Frank Duggan, president of the Victims of Pan Am Flight 103, which represents American relatives, ‘He is a thorn in our side – every day that he is living freely is just ripping the wound open again.'
Leaked diplomatic cables released this week confirmed that Colonel Gadaffi made ‘thuggish threats’ against Britain in a bid to secure Megrahi’s release.
“His death will pave the way for a bid by his family to sue the Scottish authorities over his alleged treatment in Greenock Prison”
This man murder 270 innocents civilians, sick or not London and Scotland Gov. and their supporters of his release, Like JUSTIN KUNTZ, should be ashamed of his release.
Scottish authorities described as “compassionate” release and at the same time
Ali Megrahi family members will sue Scottish authorities over his alleged treatment in Greenock Prison??
Bunch of liars these Brits, nothing new.
@179
Dec 10th, 2010 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hypocrisy is the state of pretending to have beliefs, opinions, virtues, feelings, qualities, or standards that one does not actually have. Hypocrisy involves the deception of others and is thus a kind of lie.
www.upi.com/Top_News/Special/2010/10/06/Chile-Argentina-row-over-asylum-deepens/UPI-46521286396201
J. A. ROBERT:
Dec 10th, 2010 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have no idea about what you are saying, you know so little about international right, you are not going to know more than a porfessor like akehurst and many others, like it or not.
Anwway, just for a metter of respect, i understand your posture, and i respect it, but what is relevant for me, is the knowleadge of academic people, and that's not your case.
About (178)
Dec 10th, 2010 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let’s see:......................
Mr. “Just In Kuntz’es head” original “false” postulate:
”Peron admitted as much, when he stated that he didn't believe in the claim to the “Malvinas” but it was useful to unite the people.”
Today, Mr. “Just in Kuntz’es head” provides following link:
”Peron chose June the 10th to be “Malvinas Day”, when he was rejuvenating the Argentine claim - as he told Bill Hunter-Christine “to take the people's minds off internal problems”.
www.falklands.info/history/histarticle19.html
What a difference !!!......................But that is exactly what I have said all the time about Mr. “Just In Kuntz’es head” system of ”Small convenient lies”…..
He takes 20% truth and blends it with 80% lies.
Then repeat the story on every possible forum , includes it in Wikipedia if possible and insults anybody that doubts the veracity of his material.
What a Turnip
If you want the full quote you'll have to buy the book:
Dec 10th, 2010 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.d-falklands-b.org/
Think, you judge people by your own standards, every time you claim I've lied I've proved you wrong. Every time you do I demonstrate you lie by reflex.
Please do go back to being a lying, mendacious arse, heaven forbid you should ever admit to being WRONG.
If you want the full quote you'll have to buy the book:
Dec 10th, 2010 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think is so tight you couldnt ram a needle up his arse with a mallet
Think “Mr. “Just in Kuntz’es head”He takes 20% truth and blends it with 80% lies.”
Dec 10th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think the ratio is 99%(lies) to 1% truth.
Chuckle chuckle
Dec 10th, 2010 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Old excuses from Mr. Just in Kuntz’es head…..
On Wikipedia he usually refers to inexistent or non functioning links to “document” his “convenient litlle lies”…………….
Anybody protesting this is automatically insulted and accused of having a double agenda.
When a Wiki moderator intervenes he gets all sweet again but can not understand why his links do not work.
Anybody doubting my asseverations can have a look at Wikipedia articles as:
“History of the Falklands”
“Gibraltar”
“Kelpers”
“Origin of Falkland Islanders”
and many others……..
Click on the discussion section (top right) and read how “Justin”Kuntz insults and argues with half the lying world……
Click on the discussion section (top right) and read how “Justin”Kuntz insults and argues with half the lying world……
Dec 10th, 2010 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you have a job Think? 8-|
#175 - Axel, Vernett recognised that the British had the superior right and sought British permission to form a settlement on the islands as part of a business venture. He got permission to do so. The British had no need to give him a fancy title, nor did the British government require a Royal Decree to facilitate the permission. That was not the way the British Government worked in 1833.
Dec 11th, 2010 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can ignore Spain as they did not return to enforce their claim. Argentina did not inherit any of the Falkland islands from Spain and that principle of internetional law was not established in 1833. It is arguable even now!
#176 Marvin, you are ignoring the evidence of the instructions to the Captain recieving restitution which clearly identifies that, in the face of any comment from the Spanish to the contary, that he was to claim ALL the islands. Pascoe & Pepper make a very good point.
#181 - Axel, so tell me - when did Uit Possidetis Juris become established as the principle that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that they had before their independence. 1800? 1810? 1825? 1833? 1850? Unless you know the answer to that you do not know whether the principle applies to the Falkland islands.
Good morning all - Islands still British? Yes! Wonderful :-)
I have no idea what I am saying Axel? Well you might as well say that for yourself, particularly when you make statements like this: “like it or not, as sucessors of the spanish kingdom”.
Dec 11th, 2010 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0There was no formal transfer of rights from Spain to BsAs or the UP or Argentina. The best you got was formal recognition of your independence in 1859, effectively accepting and recognising the status quo but did Spain did not recognise Argentine succession to any Spanish rights in South America and never has done! That is the difference between being granted independence and taking independence unilaterally and by force. Argentina did NOT, repeat did NOT, inherit ANYTHING from Spain. Please stop trotting out this ridiculous Argentine government propaganda. You have no idea how stupid it makes you look Axel.
well if they did “inherit” anything from Spain, how come they don't rule most of South America(Colombia, Venezuela,Bolivia etc etc?) & what about the Philippines? Spanish for 400 years. that must be yours also, no? you don't want Mexico, more drugs than you
Dec 11th, 2010 - 10:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0@176 Malvinense 1833
Dec 11th, 2010 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0So Malvin if you believe Pascoe & Peppers findings are untrue, how about posting some links to verifiable EVIDENCE that proves them wrong.
Your reprisentitives at the 2007 seminar couldn't and still have failed to responde with any viable facts three years later.
Please find the time to read this interesting article, it is a good insight into how the average Argentine thinks (or rather doesn't) and explains the findings of a multi-stage research project on the nationalistic, authoritarian and militaristic contents of Argentina's educational system, in other words indoctrination.
http://www.argentina-rree.com/documentos/culture_escude.htm
Yawn, best you can do Think? Anyone else notice the inability to focus on a cogent argument, lots of accusations, smears and innuendo, short on proof.
Dec 11th, 2010 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Dendrich
Dec 11th, 2010 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cue Carlos Escudé bashing of the worst kind from the Malvinista idiots with gems like links to blogs which “prove” his bias because he apparently belongs to a masonic lodge (?), is “controversial” (because they don't agree with him), is in “intellectual disrepute” (whatever that means - also because they don't agree with him) etc etc. All while providing zero evidence to back up their assertions. It should provide for some amusement at the very least...
@ J A Roberts
Dec 11th, 2010 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Amusing indeed & sums up the average malvinist to a 'T'.
I have debated the Falklands issue with many Argentines (mainly FBook) after reading this it became so clear as to why they give so much absolute dribble in there logic.
I had one guy state he didn't know why the malvinas were Argentine, but he knew in his heart that they were, another such Argentine was insistant the whole of Europe & US would die without Argentine food & water.
Totaly amusing & not suprising they don't agree with him, however as an outsider looking in I'm convinced he got it right.
i am not depective regarding argentina,the only thing i dont understand is why such a big country with allkind of climates and resources is so bad administred,while other emigrant countries like australia,canada,new zeeland and usa are in the first row .
Dec 11th, 2010 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0there is always one stupid person , sadly in this case it was argentina.
Dec 11th, 2010 - 07:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But she does try, ????????
@expat
Dec 11th, 2010 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0New Zealand reach country?
Do you know what its Official Exchange Rate and China FDI?
Australia export partners “China 21.81%, Japan 19.19%, South Korea 7.88%, India 7.51%, US 4.95%, UK 4.37%, NZ 4.1%” commodities and Raw Materials and except by minerals and Australia doesn’t overpass Argentina in any of these fields.
Argentina produces more Oil and commodities in quantity than Australia.
So why a country like Australia in the ’90 had a little economy than Argentina (250bn) in Nominal GDP and today seems to be 2 or almost 3 times Arg. Economy?.
Exchange rate its the Answer and China FDI, today exchange of the AUD (Australian dollar) its almost equal to the Argentina convertibility 1=1. One AUD= 0.99 US dollar.
Now see the external debt of Australia U$s 1.094 trillions (bigger than its GDP)
Account balance –U$s 50bn
Industrial production Growth -3.9%
Budget Deficit: revenues: $279 bn - expenditures: $318 bn = -39bn for 2009
And as you can see Australia its by now one of the first suppliers of commodities and raw material to the 2&3 Asian giants.
Now just peg the $ (Peso) again to the Dollar and you will see how little its Australia economy in nominal terms to Argentina. The Amount will give you a figure of Argentina’s GDP of U$s 1.975t.
Now perform any type of deflator (to skip inflation if you like) and the amount would be bigger than the GDP of Mexico.
The economy of Australia its inflated by foreign money influx plus over value of its currency like many economies in the G7.
Now this crisis its showing the reality of the real power of those economies they will have to let their currencies to fall to get rid of the deficits and reduced external dependence of cheap loans.
So you can see now countries like UK falling from GDP $2.773 in 2007 to a less than 2 trillions for 2010 from 4th place to 7th In a very short period of time.
So don’t worry Argentina a big nominal GDP its not equal to richness : )
J. A. ROBERT. REDHOYT.
Dec 11th, 2010 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JASON: I already explained it to you in many oportunitys, i am no going to discuss it with you everyday, you never could make none objetive analisys, in fact, you dont relise how stupid you are too, when you try to refute the knowleadge of some one who studyed at the university, some times i dont know if you are moron or haughty.
Respecting carlos escude, he is a good politic analist, since he is not menemist anymore, i heard him more often, but he is not a professor of international right, i respect hes posture, but you already know what knowleadge is relevant for me.
Redhoyt: Your arguments dont resist so much debate, you know so little about international right, not even your compatriots coincid with you, anyway i already told you what is relevant for me, all tht e rest are just respectable opinions.
198 axel arg (#)
Dec 11th, 2010 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.scribd.com/doc/34399357/Extracts-from-Crawford
But on the other hand international law has been prepared to acknowledge political realities once the independence of a seceding entity was firmly established and in relation to the territory effectively controlled by it. This had, and has, nothing to do with any pre-existing right in international law on the part of any group or territory to secede. In international law before 1945, there was no such right.
Axel - you didn't answer the question, so I'll repeat it - when did Uit Possidetis Juris become established as the principle that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that they had before their independence. 1800? 1810? 1825? 1833? 1850? Unless you know the answer to that you do not know whether the principle applies to the Falkland islands !
Dec 12th, 2010 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0You claim to know more about international law than I, so perhaps you can tell me?
@188 Red, The agreement of 1771 put an end to the discussion.
Dec 12th, 2010 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0After this agreement was resignations in the House of Commons. How do you explain that?
@191 Denrich read well?
That is untrue. Such a reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement. The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated: … that he engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands. In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute –
both countries’ rights were left untouched, Britain’s as well as Spain’s.
It's hilarious. You believe that the Spanish king in HIS statement is going to leave unless the sovereignty of both countries?
The Spanish king in HIS STATEMENT made an express reservation of sovereignty, to safeguard its right above. Not so, the English king.
The RESTITUTION of the PORT and FORT EGMONT was demanded and granted as COMPENSATION for the INJURY to the BRITISH FLAG. It mentions only the restitution of the Port and Fort Egmont.
No mention of restitution of the islands. Neither Saunders Island.
Pascoe and Pepper to go with his lie elsewhere. P & P Do not try to change things. @ Red, The principle applies once independence was achieved. Our case 1816. No need for anything Spanish recognition. The former Spanish colonies became a member of the new nation. This happened with Chile, Colombia, Venezuela, Mexico, etc, etc, and as you know the Malvinas belonged to the Viceroyalty Rio de la Plata.
Marvin - no idea what you are talking about but I should emphasise that Britain WON the dispute of 1771 ...... and we allowed the Spanish to remain! Hope that helps.
Dec 12th, 2010 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for 'the principle' .... no it doesn't, besides which the principle was not an accepted norm in international law in 1833. You can't back-date it and attempt to apply it to islands that were then British property!
@ Red, Britain won the dispute of 1771.... And the Spanish ruled the islands! it seems logical what you are saying? Besides the 1771 agreement does not say the same thing.
Dec 12th, 2010 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute –
BOTH countries’ rights were left untouched, Britain’s as well as Spain’s.”
Pascoe & Pepper. Wrong. read 201.
As for the principle no it doesn't, besides which the principle was not an accepted norm in international law in 1833. Argentina already existed in 1816. Then Argentina, United States, Mexico, does not exist for you.
Got some bad news for you Marvin, although Axel may appreciate it ... he likes Academics !
Dec 12th, 2010 - 05:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Uti possidetis, as well as the concept of noninterference in the internal affairs of sovereign states, became well-established principles of general application only after the end of the Second World War during the process of decolonization .... ”
http://pbosnia.kentlaw.edu/symposium/resources/hasani-fletcher.htm
So this Professor considers that the principle you attach so much importance too was not a factor in 1833. Therefore the British broke no international law at that time!
1771 was won by the British. Yes, the question of sovereignty was not dealt with leaving two claimants ... the British and the Spanish. Argentina was not a party to that claim!!
204 Redhoyt (#)
Dec 12th, 2010 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You can the evolution of uti possidetis juris from its origins to its becoming part of international law here:
http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf
page 8 of the pdf
The Latin American Uti Possidetis Norm
@Malvinense 1833
Dec 12th, 2010 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The evidence you seek is contained in Spanish within Caillet-Bois 1952, P305
This document shows Vernet's Land Grants from his approach to the Buenos Aires Government of 5th January 1828, a government who were hoping that Vernet would give them a chance in Vernet's own words of 'putting the Sovereignty over the coasts and islands of the south beyond doubt.' The document is countersigned by Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths of the British Embassy in Buenos Aires, so the British gave Vernet permission to undertake his commercial activities on the islands, which by its signature being present, immediately counters any claim of Sovereignty that Buenos Aires was hoping the expedition was going to establish. Why ask the British for Permission, unless they actually hold Sovereignty?
Remember that this all occurred in 1828, and between then and 1833 Argentina set out to steal the territory from the British, and commit piracy against British, American (that didn't work out too well in your favour either), and Portugese Sailing Vessels around and on the Islands.
In 1833 we told you to bugger off, and you did, and we didn't need to fire a shot, later in 1850 the Convention of Settlement was signed by Britain and Argentina, 'putting and end to the existing differences', and 'the settlement of existing differences' between Britain and Argentina, and that we were now in 'perfect friendship', with 'perfect relations of friendship'. That was the end of the matter.
Your present claim is one manufactured on a false version of history, one day you'll all grow up and realise this; but if you want war, then we're quite prepared to give you a fight, the events of 1982 should make you realise this.
Utis Possidetis Juris was agreed at the Conference of Lima in 1848. The presumption that it is a universal aspect of International Law is a misnomer. It was originally agreed as a means for former Spanish colonies to delineate the borders between the nascent states of South America. It has been adopted by certain African states as a principle to settle boundary disputes.
Dec 12th, 2010 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It doesn't apply to Britain though, as it was not a signatory to it in 1848, nor had it agreed to adopt it.
Interestingly under Utis Possidetis Juris, it would confer a claim upon Uruguay seeing as Puerto Soledad was administered from Montevideo. But never let details like that get in the way of an Argentine rant.
Answering nicodins argument ,I am not talking about PBI,exchange rates,surplus etc,I am talking about quality of live , people have in australia and Nzeeland a better quality of live than people in argentina.
Dec 12th, 2010 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0by the way,did you read the opinion of vargas llosa (nobel price literature 2010) see: vargas llosa y argentina in youtube
@206 You read the entire book of Caillet Bois??? Or is guided by what they tell others of a small paragraph? read the entire book.
Dec 12th, 2010 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's funny but all had British permission. The Spanish governors and then Vernet.
Well done boys, interesting stuff here. Thanks Dab, I'll settle down with that after the morning's chores :-)
Dec 12th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So that's the inheritance gone then :-0
@ expat
Dec 13th, 2010 - 12:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 01- Mario Vargas Llosa is a stupid ex communist mercenary now promoter of the Neocon Ideology to sell his books. So I don’t even bother to read or see what people like him has to say like Andrés Oppenheimer, etc. All are crap.
“Vargas Llosa is a former communist turned free market advocate”
http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/126757/peruvian-native-wins-nobel-prize-in-literature
I don’t need Vargas Llosa to tell me how is the country in where I’m now actually living mate.
I can compare by my self and you?
2- I will not deny that some Australians had and good standard of living if they got money like here and everywhere.
But you have to know that a little Studio/ Flat cost around U$s 400.000 and a 3 bed plus more than a million dollar in Sydney.
Or you can end living in what we call here a “Prefabricada” Villa Miseria style property in the middle of not where for U$s 155.000 like this http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/126757/peruvian-native-wins-nobel-prize-in-literature
They cost here (in Argentina) its around U$s 8000/9000 ($33.000) plus the land lets say same type of place U$s20.000 or less U$s29.000 So do you want to buy one like this and put in the beach to live like your Australian dream? http://www.ny1.com/content/top_stories/126757/peruvian-native-wins-nobel-prize-in-literature
The average salary paid in this areas in Australia it is $498 per week what would be U$s 1.992 per month before tax reduction. At least you work in mining or oil industry what would be the higher salaries (around $100.000 per year)
A person with an average salary would have to work for 6.5 years to buy his Villa Miseria House in Australia.
A person in Argentina with a minimum wage (Not average what would be more) what its around $1.250 would have to work 7.67 years to buy his Villa Miseria House. And with an average salary would be 4.79 years.
Keep reading V.G and AO and you sure will think that Chile its super power.
If you would like to live in fantasy land...
@209 I don't need to read the whole book, I gave you a Spanish reference that proves that the signature of the British Vice-Consul on Vernet's Land Grants gave British Permission to his commercial activities. As Britain held Sovereignty over the Falkland Islands he had to ask for this Permission, and therefore did so.
Dec 13th, 2010 - 08:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't need to translate Caillet-Bois, because it refers to an earlier document that also contains a copy of the Land Grants, the April 1829 Correspondence between Vernet and Aberdeen, within 'Dispatch 24', this is an Official Historical Record Available at the UK Foreign Office, known as PRO FO 6 499.
Why not order a copy and start by looking at page 4?
Nothing funny about it at all, it just a fact, something that is normally missing from the manufactured history and claim of the Argentine Government, which started under Peron, and persists to this day; You only believe in the big lie, by virtue of the systematic indoctrination of the Argentine people.
Even Peron understood this, and admitted as such to Bill Hunter-Christie; but because the Big Lie pulls on your patriotic heart strings, you would rather believe the lie than read the evidence, the facts, that render the history you've been taught as lies.
One day, you'll all grow up and realise that your Government has been treating you as idiots for too long; everyone else on the planet can see this but yourselves, even the Southern Cone treat your country like the village idiot. They tell you they agree with you, and support you, but do the exact opposite.
Grow the fuck up.
REDHOYT.
Dec 13th, 2010 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I forgat to answer your question.
The point is that some of the territorys that were part of the viceroalty, dedided to separate from our country, it means that they were not interested on having any sovereign link with argentina.
The case of the malvinas, is very diferent, that place was part of argentina, and it was stole by another country, i know that you have a diferent arguments, but when i publish my survey, you will see the proves that i have to legitimate my what i affirm.
Beside, i agree with you respecting that the judgment from the i. c. j. takes a precedent regarding territorial integrity, about the kosovo case.
However, the malvinas cause is very diferent, the malvinas are not part of argentina since 1983 unfortunately, because they are ocuppyed by another country, but in the case of kosovo, it was part of the territory of servia, and for cultural reasons it's people wanted to separate from that country, i remember i discussed with one of the professors of public inetrnational right from the university, about these two causes, and she made a diference betwen both cases.
Axel. for fuck's sake, use your brain. If a territory is Spanish, it cannot become Argentine if Argentina never established control over that territory and Spain never gave that territory to Argentina. It does not matter whether the territory was part of the same viceroyalty as Argentina or not.
Dec 13th, 2010 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dab - be kind, Axel is a 'company' man hoping for a bright future spinning the government line in its education system. Uti Posseditis Juris appears a little too difficult for him to understand.
Dec 13th, 2010 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, Argentina DID NOT inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain. Therefore the British didn't steal the Falkland Islands from Argentina. Therefore the islands are British ...... and had been since at least 1765 :-)
Easy, no?
The point is that some of the territorys that were part of the viceroalty, dedided to separate from our country, it means that they were not interested on having any sovereign link with argentina.
Dec 13th, 2010 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel, Paraguay, Uruguay, and Paraguay separated from the Kingdom of Spain but they did not separate from your country because they were never part of your country.
Argentina never established control of the Falklands; therefore, Argentina never separated the Falklands from the Kingdom of Spain. The UK did establish control of the Falklands; therefore, the UK did separate them from the Kingdom Spain.
Therefore, the Falklands are British.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!