MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, January 31st 2023 - 09:38 UTC

 

 

Argentina rejects Cameron’s refusal to negotiate over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands

Tuesday, December 28th 2010 - 11:59 UTC
Full article 202 comments

The Argentine Government yesterday rejected recent declarations of the British Prime Minister David Cameron who said that he would not negotiate over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands despite insistent claims from the South American country. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • falklandlad

    As forecast CFK and her regime just don't understand simple and plain English. One is tempted to say bury the hatchet, but soon there will be 03Jan2011 and the wonderful anniversary of the permanent raising of the Union flag at Port Louis. And there will be more diatribe emanating from the Buenos Aires Casa Rosada.
    The only risk of shipping in the south-west Atlantic is that at risk from Argentine sea-blockade and threats of harrassment while ships go about their normal trade.
    Wake up Mrs Kirchner, the new situation in the south-west Atlantic is making of no other person than yourself and your late husband.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Nice picture to describe the dispute and the status quo.

    This is now a three factor dispute; that´s why there is a dispute.

    We need to find the way to make this a two factor situation.

    There are now three factors in south west atlantic; we need (argies & kelpers; we are the only ones that can´t be removed) to reduce them to only two, and the only factor that can be removed is the alien factor.

    Remove the alien factor and settle the peace exercising selfdetermination.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Remove the alien factor

    And let the Argies walk right in

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 01:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Is it possible to 'reject' a 'refusal' ?

    Hey ho! Who cares anyway? There is no problem! There is only a two factor situation - the British and the Falkland islanders ( well spotted Billious) !

    The Argies are irrelevant and cannot do anything! 178 years (nearly) of British rule ................. another 1768 to come (islander's so wishing!)

    :-)

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 01:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Billy, - it could well be a potential road to go down-BUT - at the moment the Islands need UK for our defence as we are under strong economic attack and military harrassment of fishing vessels in the area. If a way can be found to cool the tension from the shipping interferences, air restrictions etc etc - then there would not be the need for the strong UK military prescence.
    THEN Arg and Falklands could perhaps talk about finding a way of using selfdetermination as a principle to solve our arguments.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Islander, you are in a vicious circle mate; luckily you have the power to leave that circle; use your selfdetermination to ask your masters to leave and settle the peace with argentina; if not keep rolling like a hamster in that vicious circle at argie & Uk dialectic tone.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yaghan

    @3:
    Eager for a fight, aren't you? Well, that can easily be settled. I assume you are a benny, so probably you would like to fight near wherever shithole you happen to desecrate by your presence. A one to one fight, without your royal tuturs, if you dare, for a change.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ed

    The Malvinas Islanders havo to declare their Independence from
    UK Monarch by using self-determination right and
    change their sheepy figured flag...
    after UN recognition we may negotiate with them....

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 02:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • falklandlad

    Hey Islander, whose side are you on and whose views to you represent? If you had some first hand experience of endeavouring to deal with successive Arg regimes, then you might have tempered your comments to suit. Only one Arg regime came close to recognising the necessity to include and involve the Islanders in Arg thought processes and decision-making, and that was Carlos Memen, whose initial policy was set down by the recently departed Amb Garcai del Solar, and subsequently with his anglophile Foreign Minister Guido de Tella. Unfortunately for Guido, while on the one hand he was trying to quietly usher in understanding, others were undoing his work by seeking amendments to the Arg constitution which finally enshrined the Arg claim over the Falklands. That fact in view scuppers any potential to discuss anything with Argentina. di Tella could see political opportunities by jointly exploring for oil and gas and putting in place long term protective measures for the sustainable fishing within the marine ecosystem on the patagonian shelf. Along came the K's and systematically destroyed both agreements, yanking up the Arg hostility flag. Arg needs to back off. But even if it did, there would unlikley be any downsizing of UK defence committments to the Falklands, becuase Argentina just cannot be trusted. It would need to undo decades of hostile actions against the Falklands. So in many respects Islander, you've stepped a little too far. And as for yaghan - bad language is not helpful to discussion. Do the decent thing and withdraw your comment yourself.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Islander1 - It would indeed be a road that could happen IF what billy is saying is true.

    For some reason, billy seems to have it in his head that Argentina's only goal is to get the UK military presence out of the south atlantic.

    His views are flawed, because..

    1. Argentina has never said such a thing, Argentina's goals are quite clear(look at the post) they want ownership of the islands, nothing less.

    2. The British leaving the islands would not mean the end of the British forces in the south atlantic.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Zethee; not only military presence should leave, most important is british political presence that should leave.

    You are right, argentine main goal is to recover malvinas sovereignty; but argentina is also saying that she want to negotiate that...so, offer argentina british retreat and I´m sure you will see that what I´m saying is true.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    A one to one fight, without your royal tuturs, if you dare, for a change.

    WTF
    You had your chance and got your arse kicked LOL

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Falklandlad-9 You are totally correct and I have said the same more than once on these pages - yes it will take much longer to repair 2003-2010 than it has taken for the Ks to destroy the achievements of Menem and Di Tella.
    Billy-11 - sadly all Argentina wants to talk about is the TRANSFER- of Sovereignty. That is why there is no point in any discussions.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Remove the alien factor and settle the peace exercising selfdetermination.”

    “You are right, argentine main goal is to recover malvinas sovereignty”

    So which is it? Because one contradicts the other billy.

    They HAVE there selfdetermination, why on earth would they give it up so they they might bargin with Argentina for something they don't want? They don't want to be Argentinian, All Argentina want's is the islands.

    There is no “Deal” which might suit everyone, So we will keep it the way it is.. At Argentinas expense.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Raul

    In the cover of the note three flags are come. It is an error, the islanders of Falkland/Malvinas are we a nation recognized by the UN. Them, the islanders have an existential problem, they are English or they are Argentinean. It is a very well-known trap of the United Kingdom that you/they invent a third in discord in front of any dispute of sovereignty, as Belize, Gibraltar, Malaysia etc.
    While they are not defined of what sides they are never nobody they will understand them.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    How strange, I thought NO meant the same in English and Spanish, is there some problem in understanding ?

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    So lets get this straight Billy, if the Falklands became independant then Argentina would drop it's claim to sovereignty, remove the clause in it's constitution that enshrines that and have a happy and prosperous relationship with us a peaceful neighbour forever?

    Sounds like a theoretical pipedream to me. Why can't you see that all the 'colonial masters' bullshit is just that, bullshit. As for the British military presence...what of it? it's a small defensive installation, do you really believe that you are in danger of a military excursion by Britain? get real, that's not what they're here for.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yaghan

    @12:
    You are nothing but a coward. That is for all here to see.
    @9:
    ”He also strengthened the newly cordial relations with the U.K. and signed landmark commercial cooperation accords regarding the Exclusive Economic Zone around the Falkland Islands with British Foreign Secretary Douglas Hurd, in November 1991. A charm offensive towards residents of the Falklands (including Di Tella's personally-autographed annual postcards) remained largely fruitless - though it resulted in an improved opinion of Argentina by the islanders, who credited him with being the first Argentine politician to recognise that any solution to the problem must involve consultations with the islanders themselves”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_di_Tella
    I personally heard comments on Di Tella's charm offensive during my stay on the Islands. Most of them considered it amusing, but totally ridiculous. Many said they received the whole package: the Xmas postcard, a Teddy Bear and a VC. They simply thrashed it. In the '70s, when you were largely ignored by all those you now worship, we supplied you with gas, oil, and fresh vegetables at low cost. Many of you went to BA hospitals or schools.
    Fact is that war saved the islands, as many of you stated when interviewed not long ago:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guido_di_Tella

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    No one takes British seriously unless they have a prime minister
    who seems like Danny de Vito (*) !

    (*) a Hollywood actor .

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Yaghan,
    Plenty may well have done that with Di Tella,s gifts - but he achieved a shift in the younger generation thinking over here - by the end of that Govt there was a growing body of opinion here that was starting to say “ sovereignty aside for now - maybe we can find a way of living alongside each other and co-operating where it makes sense” - once you start that, then in a generation or two the sovereignty issue can start to fade a bit from both sides. It was longterm planning yes - but he was heading in the only realistic direction for Argentina to go.
    All the Kirscheners have done is put everything right back to the dictatorship threat days of 1982 - the onlt differene between economic and miltary war id the lead in the air - both are war - and your Govt has declared war on the Islands make no mistake. We, with help from UK behind us - are standing up to and confronting your Govt in this war.
    OH incidentally - all those medical fees were paid in hard cash - as for the schools - that didnt last long anyway as it backfired on your Generals as ordinary Argentine folks wanted to know why their kids could not go to those schools for free as well!
    The Gas and Oil was no special deal - you treated us as on the same terms as TDF and Southern Patagonia.
    I would agree with you though that 1982 and Argentina,s BIG error saved the Islands - permanently.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Rufus

    So, we have the concept of tripartate talks, I can see it now (again)

    ARG: All of your islands are belong to us
    FIG: **** off
    UK: We support the position of the duly elected Falkland Islands Government
    ARG: The UK must not act unilaterally on fossil fuel deposits
    UK: All right, we'll cancel all of the licences that we have issued to drill
    FIG: Except you haven't issued any, and we're not cancelling ours
    ARG: We'll get all of our friends in South America to not allow Falkland flagged ships to dock.
    FIG: **** off, and by the way, there aren't any Falkland flagged ships anyway.
    UK: To the first point, we support the position of the duly elected Falkland Islands Government, and to the second all of your friends in South America, with the exception of you immediate and smaller neighbour (who apologised to us about it) aren't really paying much heed to it. In fact quite a few of them already own some very nice surplus Royal Navy vessels, or buy their ships from British shipyards.

    Somehow just ignoring them seems politer than actually talking to them would be.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ARGENTINOHASTALASBOLAS

    Falklanders, You should teach spanish in the school. Our claim for Malvinas is a State Policy. If you understand that you understand all the problem. The next government will be obligated to claim on UN. And it will again and again. We do not want any shared sovereignity. We just want to raise our Blessed Flag there.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Anyone who cites wikipedia is scraping the barrel as its written by college kids and fanatics who know nothing of the real world, and it specifically says it is NOT a reliable source.

    Why on earth would the Falkland Islanders want anything to do with a corrupt state which can't feed its own people properly ? Seems to me the Spanish and Italians colonists in Argentina would be better off going home to Spain and Italy which are modern European states. I doubt the indigenous natives care about some offshore islands.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    22 ARGENTINOHASTALA
    We do teach Spanish in the school, you ignoramus.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ARGENTINOHASTALASBOLAS

    Ok. Sorry! It seems that you have taken seriously the Islands' destiny. Good for you!

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    No, we have taken seriously our need to be understood when we ask for a beer in the Falkland Embassy (also known as Lomit's in Punta)

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Beef

    A government that has to reject a statement not directed at them is publicly demonstrating its toothlessness. Argentina is powerless to stop the Islanders expressing their democratic rights and are powerless (economically, politically or militarily) to make the UK think any differently. Such a blatant admission of powerlessness shows how incompetent the Argentina leadership scrappy is (and they get voted in)!

    Listen guys Argentina (like many of the Argie posts on here) are like a bad fart after Christmas dinner. They smell for a while but eventually go away and are nothing more than an amusing bit of flatulence. As they are not getting anything more than a guesture of support from their neighbours and have nit the balls to have their arguments subjected to legal scrutiny at the ICJ then just ignore them. Their Socialist leader is more concerned with LV handbags anyway!

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    In the '70s, when you were largely ignored by all those you now worship, we supplied you with gas, oil, and fresh vegetables at low cost. Many of you went to BA hospitals or schools.

    And in 2003
    Argentina has reported the deaths of scores of children from malnutrition, with thousands more hospitalized and fighting for their lives. Nearly half a million children—more than one in five—are suffering from malnutrition across the country. Included among the deaths reported in recent weeks was a 14-year-old who died February 10, weighing only 25 kilos and a three-year-old weighing only 9.8 kilos—the normal weight for a one-year-old.

    The hardest hit areas are in Argentina’s northern provinces-rural agricultural zones-such as Tucuman with more than 20 children officially reported dead in barely four months. There are up to 2,000 official malnutrition cases in Simoca, a city just south of Tucuman’s capital, and authorities estimate that there are 18,000 throughout the province.

    Dec 28th, 2010 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Billious, you are either deluded or seeking to get the islander's to disarm themselves. The British are also in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and will NOT leave the south Atlantic. Get used to it!

    Nothing much seems to have changed on this bright, if chilly, morning. The Falkland Islanders seem safe enough, Argentina continues to bang its head against the British brick wall and I'm in for bacon and eggs ....... all's well with the world then :-)

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Beef, Think is right; you seem to have a coprology degree and now you add a flatulent smelling seminar, come on mr.PhD!!

    Please, don´t talk about democracy in kelperland if they don´t exercise selfdetermination and don´t command their own country.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    They do execise self determination billy. They choose to keep the Uk government. That IS self determination.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Txks Zethee I know your interpretation of selfdetermination; but selfdetermination is an anticolonial tool and you can use it to sustain a colonial enclave in south atlantic; London has nothing to rule in south atlantic, british presence is an obsolte relic in modern world.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Since then, before the United Nations and other international organisations, Argentina has not ceased .to claim sovereignty over these islands situated some 400 nautical miles from her coast, which the British invaded and occupied in 1833. Historical accuracy, said by many British.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Txks Zethee I know your interpretation of selfdetermination; but selfdetermination is an anticolonial tool”

    It's not an interpretation, that's what the word is. Check for your self:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination
    “self determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status”

    Every argentinian on here seems to misunderstand the word entirely. You guys seem to think that self determination is some sort of anti colonisational clause in law, it is not.

    It is the right to choose your government. Every time you go and vote for your next president, you are exercising your own right to self determination.

    It is not some right created to help colonists. It is a human right, which everyone is entitled to.

    United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization was set up for the sole purpose to allow people self determination where said people did not once have it.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Marvin, a country cannot invade its own territory ..... impossible, doesn't make sense!

    Billious, I rather suspect that each individual in the Falkland Islands has a greater say in the running of their territory than you do in the running of yours.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (35) Hoyt

    Not even MercoPress, the British SouthAtlantic News Agency agrees with your nonsense........
    Last paragraph of this very article:

    ”- Argentina has not ceased to claim sovereignty over these islands situated some 400 nautical miles from her coast, which the British invaded and occupied in 1833.- ”

    I suggest that you write to your MP protesting about this British NewsAgency that occasionally tales the truth :-)

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 07:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • falklandlad

    Beef #27. You got it in one! Difficult to comprehend much of the venemous and ill-considered, illogical Arg diatribe on here now. It seems the sensible thing to follow Redhoyt #29 and call for a breakfast of bacon and eggs! All's well on this warm but quiet and foggy morning. A nice warm calm day developing from the high pressure rolling off Argentina - a rare occasion for something good to come from Argentina - good BBQ weather in Stanley!

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    @think

    It seems you don't. Mercopress is not British, its from Uruguay. Perhaps you think Uruguay should be part of Argentina too.? Its a pity your Government does not sort out the problems of the Argentine people and keeps its nose out of things that do not concern it. Like the Falklands.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Morning, Falklands still not Argentine:-)

    Argentina has not ceased to claim sovereignty over these islands situated some 400 nautical miles from her coast, which the British invaded and occupied in 1833.- ”

    Goes into Argie style hissy fit,Mercopress is a argy mouthpiece etc blah blah etc stamp scream,goes nuclear and holds breath

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    Self Determination (Argentine Definition): The right to do only what Argentina tells one to do, applies to all countries less powerful than Argentina (Global total: one, the Falkland Islands, pop 3,000).

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    It's still impossible to invade your own territory :-)

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 11:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Typhoon

    A little bit of South American inaccuracy. “Argentina has not ceased .to claim sovereignty over these islands situated some 400 nautical miles from her coast, which the British invaded and occupied in 1833.”

    Argentina ceased to claim sovereignty on several occasions. Also Britain didn't invade. It returned, requested that the UPSA garrison (Argentina didn't exist) leave and invited the remainder of the population to remain. Most of the population did remain.

    South Americans can't get the simplest things right!

    And Britain is staying. To protect its territory in Antarctica, South Sandwich Islands, South Georgia and the Falkland archipelago.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 11:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • PomInOz

    “What strictly speaking is contrary to international law”...is tacit acknowledgement of the fact that Argentina knows that it is acting contrary to international law with its pathetic attempt to blockade the Islands and diplomatic/apologetic speak for the same.
    As for Resolution 31/49, well, we've been here before haven't we?! Non-binding for starters and the unilateral action that the Argentines took in 1982 kinda'/shoulda' ensure that the Argentines can no longer rely on it. Doesn't stop them though, does it?! Idiots!
    On a far better note - England hammered the Convicts today - retained the Ashes - Aussies unhappy. Life's good! And, as Redhoyt would say, “Falklands still British. Yes. All's well with the world then”!

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Your interpretation of selfdetermination is hilarious;

    Like a slave that under his master sight using his “freedom” choose to remain a slave....so he is excersising his right to be free choosing slavery :).

    Your selfdetermination interpretation contradicts the purpouse of this modern tool; to fight against colonialism and make the people to rule their own countries and affairs.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 12:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Obviously the Falkland islanders are struggling under the yoke of British colonialism, and yearn to be part of a free and democratic third world country like Argentina. Or not.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Billious, it's you that are confused. Self determination applies to all - yoked or unyoked :-)

    “ ... self determination is the principle in international law, that nations have the right to freely choose their sovereignty and international political status with no external compulsion or external interference. The principle does not state how the decision is to be made, or what the outcome should be, be it independence, federation, protection, some form of autonomy or even full assimilation. Neither does it state what the delimitation between nations should be — or even what constitutes a nation. ...”

    Mind you being a part of Argentina has its attractions - http://www.reuters.com/article/interactive/idUSTRE69P0X620101026?view=small&type=domesticNews

    Good news about the Ashes ..... :-)))

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 01:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    I think that an unvoted british governor, an unvoted british chief executive and a unvoted british-made constitution with some special powers in crown´s head is enough external interference to support my argument.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Irrelevant Billious, irrelevant!

    Self determination is the islanders right, and that right is supported by the British Government. It's up to the islanders, it's not up to the British and it's certainly not up to Argentina.

    Hey, I've found another anniverssary .... 2nd December 1980 , in the House of Commons a certain phrase was used (I think) for the first time by one Nicholas Ridley - “ ... ”We have no doubt about our sovereignty over the Falkland Islands... we have a perfectly valid title”

    30 years of British brick wall :-)

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    # 38 #
    you say...Mercopress is from Uruguay !!...interesting..!!
    would you give us it's adress please .......let's talk with them !?

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 01:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    #49 Look at either the “about” or “advertise” link below for the Mercopress contact info it's clearly in Montevideo Uruguay.

    I wonder how so many Argies can post, no gas at the gas stations, rolling blackouts in BA and many part of the city without running water. And they wonder why the Falklands don't want to become part of it! It immediately takes them from 1st world to 3rd world why would anyone want that? HAHAHA

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    #50#
    I remember you said that living in US !
    any your concerns in one of below list while US living ?

    Injury deaths rates United States ;
    Death per 100.000 population :

    Motor vehicle traffic......16%...
    Firearm................12%...
    Poisoning.........10%...
    Fall...................7.5%...
    Suffocation....... 6%....

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Your interpretation of selfdetermination is hilarious;”

    Read it. I have quoted the actual definition of the word, that is NOT an interpretation.

    “Your selfdetermination interpretation contradicts the purpouse of this modern tool; to fight against colonialism and make the people to rule their own countries and affairs.”

    Firstly...again. Self Determination is NOT a tool. it's a human right, which is applicable to humans who are ruled by people whom they do not wish to be.

    For the rest of your post you are absolutly correct..But for the wrong reasons:

    “to fight against colonialism and make the people to rule their own countries and affairs.”

    Self Determination does indeed help to fight agains colonialism where the right is denied to said people. British rule is not imposed on the islanders, they have there self determination. They WANT the uk as government.

    Argentina wants to impose herself on the islanders, there is no self determination there.

    “I think that an unvoted british governor, an unvoted british chief executive and a unvoted british-made constitution with some special powers in crown´s head is enough external interference to support my argument.”

    Therein the flaw in your logic. The islanders want to keep the UK as government..the governor and cheif of staff come with keeping the UK as government.

    Democracy is(to quote the greeks) “rule of the people”. And if the “people” want a queen and a governor it is infact, Democratic.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Zethee; you are repeating the tale of the slave (#44).

    Rule of the people means that the people rules, popular sovereignty; that will never happen with a foreign unvoted governor, etc.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    #51 What does that have to do with anything? But as long as you brought it up, Argentina has the most traffic deaths of any country in Latin American and you are trying to say what about the USA? Have you ever been here? Doubt it, I bet you can't even get a visa, hahaha.

    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=38693

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    Billy, However deluded you believe we are in our choice of government it is just that...our choice. That should be good enough for you.

    ...or does my (Argie) definition of self-determination actually have some truth in it.

    Argies: 'Falkland Islanders have the right to self-determination, the right to choose their own government
    Falkland Islanders: 'OK, we choose to remain a British Overseas territory'
    Argies:'......Except that, you cannot choose to remain a British Overseas Territory, that's not allowed'
    Falkand Islanders: 'Why not? it's our choice'
    Argies:.....'Er......um.......'

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    “our choice”

    That´s the problem Westis, now it´s not your choice, it´s London choice; you are not choosing anything, not even your constitution; kelperland is a powerless society, only a group of hard workers counsellors for municipal & rural duties.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “That´s the problem Westis, now it´s not your choice, it´s London choice; you are not choosing anything, not even your constitution; kelperland is a powerless society, only a group of hard workers counsellors for municipal & rural duties.”

    All British Overseas Territorys have the right to hold a refferendum and leave the UK if they so wish, our PM has offically said...On numerous occasions...even here on this article, there will be no talks on soveriginity “unless the Islanders wished it.”.

    They are free to leave the UK whenever they wish, we are not forcing them to stay.

    They have the choise to choose which government they wish to keep, that is self determination.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    Also billy, your theory that the islanders as such powerless society that are under imprial rule and have such a hard time...

    ...They why do they still want to keep us over Argentina?

    Fact is, the islanders prefer the UK over Argentina.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    No, Zethe, selfdetermination is to run your country day by day according your own interest by your own people without foreign interference.

    “They are free to leave the UK whenever they wish, we are not forcing them to stay.”

    This is not selfdetermination, this is revolution, and that is what bennies need to enjoy selfdetermination; meanwhile enjoy status quo, the dispute, the cost and underdevelopment.

    The options for bennies are clear; status quo, dispute & underdevelopment or peace, cooperation, & development. The difference or the obstacle beetwen both situations is british colonial presence.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    Billy: Underdevelopment? What are you talking about? Obviously you have never been to he Falklands it is much more “developed” and civilized than Buenos Aires.
    The Falklands is clean, safe and full of nice happy people. Why would anyone give that up to go to a place that currently can't even supply electricity, water or gas in their main city and that same city has daily violent protests about one thing or another. Please explain the benefits because they are not certainly self evident.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    # 52# gdr ...pardon ..you right.

    # 61# really you live in US ? obviously you live in Fantasyland..
    by the way ,no need to get a visa to enter US,everybody can use up
    Mexico border . you entered in by this way ?

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    #62 Most of the illegal Argentinians entered by over staying their visa then working as maid, pool cleaners etc even though they are “doctors” at home. Loser. If Argentina is so great you would think the 250K illegal Argentinians would go home. I guess they like electricity and water. hahahaha

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    @51

    16% of US Citizens die in Motor Vehicle Accidents over what period of time?

    As there's ~300 million US Citizens, and you say that in total, more than 51% will die, I'm sure they'd be interested in how long they have got to live before that happens.

    Now don't take this the wrong way, but this does seem to follow the fanatical fantasy theme of Argentina having any sort of viable, believable claim to the Falkland Islands, or having any intention of placing it and its evidence before the ICJ.

    Do you work for the Argentine Government?

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “No, Zethe, selfdetermination is to run your country day by day according your own interest by your own people without foreign interference.”

    Yes it IS self determination. Did you even read the definition of the word for gods sake? It's like talking to a bumb house brick.

    For the last time, please, please read:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-determination

    If you don't understand the term you really shouldnt comment on it billy.

    The islanders have three choises of government currently. The UK, Argentina and independance.

    They don't want Argentina.
    They can't claim independance(Because of Argentina).
    They choose to keep the UK

    Self determination in it's self is choise of government. They keep the UK because they require our defence and well...most of the islanders i've spoken to don't really seem to care about independance. If it's not broken, why fix it? Theres no real NEED for them to push for it as there are no sour feelings between us.

    The UK gives the island a large degree of independance to self govern and if they should wish it we would allow them full independance.

    Independance is great if a country wants it, but the fact is that some people just don't want it, and you can't force it upon people who don't.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    #63# Ok ...understood that you don't live in US ..
    in US everybody drink diet Cola instead of water..
    do you know quantity of illegal electricity using in US ? .. no !

    #64# I am not Argentine but for Argentina ..
    correction ; 16 persons per 100.000 population is a big number
    totaly 50.000 persons yearly !

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    http://www.un-documents.net/a25r2625.htm

    “The establishment of a sovereign and independent State, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people.”

    Territories that have exercised self-determination by maintaining a relationship with their metroplolitan state:

    Integration
    Integrated into French Republic
    Saint Pierre and Miquelon, Guadeloupe, Saint-Barthelemy, Saint-Martin, Martinique, Réunion, French Polynesia, and Wallis and Futuna

    Integrated into Australia
    Cocos (Keeling) Islands

    Integrated into the Kingdom of Denmark
    Greenland

    Integrated as a constituent country of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
    Netherlands Antilles (now dissolved and Aruba, Curacao, and Sint Martin are constituent countries in their own right, and Bonaire, Sint Eustatius, and Saba are special municipalities of the Netherlands.

    Integrated into the US
    Alaska
    Hawaii
    ________

    Free association
    Sovereign state in free association with New Zealand
    Cook Islands
    Niue Island

    Sovereign state in free association with the US
    Marshall Islands
    Palau
    Federated States of Micronesia

    ________

    Commonwealth:
    Commonwealth of the US
    Puerto Rico
    Northern Mariana Islands

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    #66 are you a monkey with a key board because what you are writing makes no sense at all.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Thats not really fair fred. I've seen videos of monkeys using computers. arquero is clearly a few steps down on evolutionary ladder.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Billy - please explain - where is the “Self-Determination” for us in having an unwanted Argentine Colonial Administration forced on us?
    At the moment we have the Govt and Administration that WE CHOOSE.

    Dec 29th, 2010 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    Ahmen to that Islander. I love this place and would be gutted to see it left to the mercy of volatile argentinean politics, maybe strike it lucky with oil and hire the A-Team to look after the islands, will stop the Rg's moaning about putting shipping at risk from a Rapier missle with its terrifying 4km range, that couldnt sink a jet ski

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    “will stop the Rg's moaning about putting shipping at risk from a Rapier missle with its terrifying 4km range, that couldnt sink a jet ski”

    LOL Y Draig Goch, a lot.
    :-))

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    well it puts into perspective that they will act like a spoiled child any chance they get , despite it being utterly trivial and laughable, but glad it brought a smile to a hot potato of a discussion

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    66 are you a monkey with a key board because what you are writing makes no sense at all.

    Cut him some slack, he is having a go :-)

    If you have enough monkeys
    banging randomly on typewriters,
    they will eventually type the works
    of William Shakespeare.”

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Islander, where do you read that Argentina want a colonial administration over you?? Not everybody in the world are like your colonial masters or the only situations that exists are colonial status.
    There are two options, in my view, for the future, agreed independence with Argentina or the reincorporation of Malvinas as another federal province with superautonomical powers. In both situations you will be able to choose your goverment as you can´t nowadays.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    unlike one of the most corrupt governments in the southern hemisphere of course! ... no not the falkland islands !

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “agreed independence >with< Argentina”
    How does that make sence. Perhaps you just ment complete independance. I think you'll find the only hurdle between the islanders and independance is Argentina.

    “the reincorporation of Malvinas as another federal province with superautonomical powers.”
    Like he said, The islands becoming part of Argentina would make them a colony of Argentina.

    “In both situations you will be able to choose your goverment as you can´t nowadays.”
    On what world do you live on? They have all these choises right at this very moment, and they CHOOSE NOT TO BE A PART OF ARGENTINA.

    How does Argentina forcing it's government on them give them more of a choise than the current government whom at the moment would allow them full independance and if the islanders wished it, the islands would be given to Argentina.

    Do you even believe the stuff you come out with?

    Somehow you seem to believe that Argentina = Freedom to these people? You need to take your medication billy, it's starting to show.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    If argentina gets its hands on the FI's, south Georgia and the South sandwhich islands, you can say goodbye to the local environments, mining and extraction would be a n a huge scale, which the mainland can absorb...for now, but these islands are small and they would be devastated, argentina would go for economy of scale to compete globally.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Billy Hayes

    Fine list Dab; but none of those situations are in south atlantic in argentine land, sea and continental shelf.

    Some day kelpers will offer british retreat and will ask argentina to drop the claim and end dispute.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    If it's what the islanders want we'll happily give them independance.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    The same offer was given to Gibralta and british sovereign Cyprus, Spain has pretty much accepted this as has cyprus, both realise theres nothing to gain and plenty to loose, becoming just another province of Argentina , with all the corrupt poltics that comes with it, would utterly ruin a fantastic part of the world

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Gibralta has had what, like three votes now?

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Strange how many of the old colonies want to keep their ties to the colonists, look at the Commonwealth, and now apparently the Gulf States are also insisting that their old colonial masters should not abandon them in the face of an aggressive Iran.

    Maybe the colonies weren't such bad places to live after all ?

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    Exactly, we were never perfect, we did a lot of bad things as an empire, but plenty of good too, no offence, but look south of the equator, not an awful lot to boast about other than aussie/nz... i await the abuse from Hispania!

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    No offence taken, I'm an Empirist :-)

    And what's below the equator anyway apart from those fine nations that you name?

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equator

    And Ascension, St. Helena, Tristan Da Cunha, the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands and British Antartica of course :-))

    We won't mention Pitcairn - it's a family affair!

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 06:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Y Draig Goch

    :D

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 06:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    #68# +#74#

    I understood that you don't want to understand anything .

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 10:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Islander1

    Billy 75 - “reincorporation within Argentina” - in any shape or form is COLONIALISM! - It would be aggainst our wishes - and that is good old fashioned Empire Colonialism - the rule by others over a people who do not want them as their political masters.
    At the moment we are happy with our autonomy arrangement with the UK- WE govern ourselves internally, yes the UK needs to approve our laws etc - simply because we follow their type of legal system and UK is internationally bound by the UN to ensure good governance here! That means they check what we do - and in practice leave us to get on with it - but if like Turks and Caicos our govt started fiddling the books and getting corrupt - then UK would intervene internally and sort out the bad guys - it would be told to do so by the UN !
    What controls are practised in Arg against Govt corruption and bribery?

    I would agree with you that ultimatley Independence is the solution - if Argentina would respect it. And so far your current Govt has made it very clear time and time again that this is NOT an option - and the only option they will take is Argentine Sovereign control - which = Colonialism.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Jedi389

    The sovereignty controversy will only end when Argentina realises that her claim is unjustified. The British Government cannot and will not discuss the issue without the “consent” of the Falkland Islands people. If they were to do so, it would be like Argentina offering Greenland to the Chinese...

    It is about time that Argentina realised that the futrure is co-operation in the South Atlantic, to help the environment, sustain fish stocks, and give a future to all the children of the world.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    Like i said in many oportunitys, as long as the u.k., and the f. i. g. reject to renew the conversations respecting the sovereignty of the archipelago, we will keep on having more of these kind of problems in the future, on the other hand, i really think that it's inadmissible that the islanders are not included in the negotiations, they are not guilty for what happened in 1833.
    I read all the time that you argue that the resolutions from the u, n. are against the wishes of the islanders, we could say too that those resolutions are against the wishes of the argentines, because none of them argue that the solution to the conflict is the transference of sovereignty to argentina, so, please dont insist with those assertions.
    Like it or not, the solution to the conflict must be politic and negotiated, it means that both parts will have to cede a little in their pretentions, if you heard the statements of mrs Cristina Kirchner, you would realise that she never said that the u.k. has to transfer the islands to argentina, her and most former presidents say that the u.k. has to renew the negotiations, in a negotiation the islanders would plant their pretentions, and it would not be imposible to find a fair solution for both parts, your problem is that you dont want any fair solution, you only have the idiot fantasy that we are going to drop in our claim, or you think that maybe some day the u. n. will reject our claim, and invoke self determination as the final solution to the conflict.
    Finally i would like to answer some thing that was argued by minister Timerman regarding the islanders in local press.
    I mean the argument of the implanted population, i dont agree on it, it should no be used any more, because beyong the fact that there is a high level of british inmigrants and of other nationalitys, most islanders take even 6 generations living in the islands, anyway i want some one to tell me what's the porcentage of native people in the whole population.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    I do so love it when the Argentines talk of 'an implanted population' hey look at YOUR ancestry - you are a bunch of European colonial implants in South America. Why do you speak Spanish, its not a native language its a leftover from your colonial past.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    #91#
    i go into exile to St.Helena island ,would you come with me ?
    i go into exile to Malvinas islands ,would you come with me ?

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “anyway i want some one to tell me what's the porcentage of native people in the whole population.”

    70% of the population are born on the islands, 30% are immigrats(Probably mostly british, but there is no figure on this).

    Military personel aren't counted in the figure(or there familys).

    “you only have the idiot fantasy that we are going to drop in our claim”

    None of us believe this for a second. We are very happy to keep the status quo.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 04:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    But Axel, if Argentina dropping it's claim is an 'idiot fantasy' then what compromise would suit you? both sides of the dispute are uncompromising so it's unfair to lay the blame just on Britain. Even if there was any middle ground they (and we) simply don't trust you to honour any agreement, why would anyone trust you given your history?

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    TWIMC
    Funny…………………......................

    If an Argentinean poster makes a relative small mistake, stating, for example, that pupils at the FICS are not teached Spanish, he is immediately called an “Ignoramus” and duly corrected………..

    But, if a British poster like the one at post No. 93 states a quite evident falsehood like :
    “- 70% of the population are born on the islands, 30% are immigrants -”

    Nobody reacts………………….

    If your own official census is to be believed, only 1.339 persons out of 3.000 were born in the Islands.
    That is under 45%.....................

    Wake up Islanders !!!!
    The English turnips are spreading lies about you!!!

    http://www.falklands.gov.fk//documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “These figures exclude all military personnel and their families, but includes 477 people who were present in the Falkland Islands in connection with the military garrison.”

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    About (93), (95) and (96)

    Well…..
    It seems that we have an apprentice of our “old friend Justin Kuntz” here……......................
    (By the way,.......... Justin changed his name in Wikipedia. He is now writing under the pseudonym “Wee Curry Monster”, very fitting if somebody asks me :-)

    “Zethee” follows the same pattern….... If reality doesn’t suits them…they write their own!

    Just check the notes from “Table 11”, “Population by Country of Birth”at page 7 of the linked file……..

    http://www.falklands.gov.fk//documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf
    ”Notes:
    1) This table includes all persons present in the Falkland Islands on Census Night (excluding persons abroad visiting vessels and those persons serving with the military garrison), as well as those household members who are normally resident but where overseas on Census Night (e.g. students).
    2) Some of those born outside the Islands are children of persons from the Falkland Islands where the mother’s confinement, for medical reasons, occurred overseas, but the child arrived within six months of birth (see below).“

    Compare now with what ” Zethee” writes at post No. 96
    Can you spot the difference?

    What a Turnip!

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    You've not said anything new. I myself said the number excuded all military personel. Perhaps you should read up?

    “These figures exclude all military personnel and their families, but includes 477 people who were present in the Falkland Islands in connection with the military garrison.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands#Demographics

    Think: “I have never criticized anyone for using or referring to Wikipedia.

    I have repeatedly expressed in here my respect for Wikipedia and it’s information.”

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 10:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    Just to remind you, an immigrant is a person who migrates to another country for permanent residence.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    'If an Argentinean poster makes a relative small mistake, stating, for example, that pupils at the FICS are not teached Spanish, he is immediately called an “Ignoramus” and duly corrected………..'

    Think, that wasn't a small mistake. It was the entire substance of the post. That's all there was. And the point was to make us appear to be insular and xenophobic.

    I noticed the mistake with the census data straight away, having spent a lot of time with this particular census recently. However, it's not my job to pick holes in posters supporting us. That's what we have you for.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Well Zethee……………
    You have just (surely unwillingly) pointed at one of Justin Kuntz’s “masterpieces” on Wikipedia!
    If you care to check the “Discussion” or the “History” area of the article you will see how deeply involved this “Falklands Internet Crusader” has been in the production of such article, discussing to death all opposition.
    A sad example of vandalism on Wikipedia comitted bi a fanatic………….

    Monty69
    As long as the intelligent are awake, I don’t care about the Turnips…………..
    Please note that I wrote: “Relative small mistake” and “Duly corrected”
    By the way…..
    Spanish teaching at FICS does not seem to be working optimally….
    Is it the Teacher, the pupils or Argentina’s fault?

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 10:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Ah ok, I see, “I have repeatedly expressed in here my respect for Wikipedia and it’s information.”

    Only works untill you disagree with that the information says.

    Nothing new.

    Dec 30th, 2010 - 11:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    Zethee……………

    You provide the following false information at post No. 93 :
    “ 70% of the population are born on the islands, 30% are immigrants ”

    Yes,………… I “disagree” with you.

    The official 2006 Falklands Census “disagrees” with you.

    An intelligent educated (Oxford, I presume) Islander lass “disagrees” with you.

    Mathematics “disagrees” with you… Even if you try to “cheat statistics” by suddenly substracting those 477 persons the result would still be just over 50%; a far cry from the 70% you mention.

    Even the Wikipedia article you quote from “disagrees” with you….It just says: “About 70 per cent are of British descent” ; nothing about “70% of the population are born on the islands”.

    You are a turnip………….. get used to it.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Its pointless arguing about Wikipedia, it is not a reliable source, but simply cites other primary and secondary sources and the content is largely written by college kids who know nothing of the real world.

    However isn't it about time the immigrant population of Argentina got stuck into sorting out their country (stolen from the natives) and stopped looking at the Falklands except for the purposes of studying GOOD GOVERNMENT in practice?

    The message from William Hague and pals is they are not really concerned about what you say or think, because Argentina is little more than a joke internationally. Whining on about the Falklands ensures nobody takes you seriously.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Good morning all ... I see that this thread is going nowhere fast. Falkland Islands still British? Yes? We'll I'll raise my cup of tea to that :-)

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 12:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    I have no objection admitting that i read the statment wrong. It has after al been a long holiday and i am rather intoxicated.

    My numbers are wrong, but so are yours.

    Wikipedia, still disagrees with your first statment...Especailly after your complete acceptance of how Wikipedia is such an amazing portal of truth.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    as for the turnip thing, it's almost as old as you are think.

    it was quite amusing the first three times you said it, a year on. Not so much.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @95 Think, have a tot of whisky, man & go back to sleep, you turnip.
    @90 Axel, rave on. there is NOTHING to discuss. l couldn't care less if you drop your claims or not. they are laughable. but be honest, if you don't want Sovereignty, then WHAT EXACTLY do you want?
    @91 Ann Other, my sentiments exactly as l have said many times.
    Happy New Year Everyone(yes,Think,you too!).

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    I was only agreeing with you, Think, in so far as agreeing that anyone can make a mistake. Apart from that, it's all so much hot air. I don't share your unhealthy obsession with where people come from. We're all Falkland Islanders, and good for us.
    And don't presume anything. We're all free to be who we want in computer land.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 10:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • arquero

    blah blah blah

    ignorant commentators + sluggish export +flagging consumers +student unrests +collapsed education system +cronic high unemployment +king-sized budget deficits + failed immigration policies + debts + debts + debts + debts + worthless islands .. = UK .

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • yul

    happy new year for all British !

    you will wake up ..+ 2.5% up to 20% VAT rate in the next week !

    after that you will see cut 300.00 public sector jobs !

    you British ! you need jobs,jobs jobs not crap islands .

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 11:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    (108) Isolde
    Good advice…..thanks

    (109) Monty69
    My “unhealthy obsession with where people come from” as you call it, is my insurance against wasting time debating or discussing with ”fantasy internet wackos”.

    A good example would be that ”pseudo Argentinean” poster: “Xbarilox”...

    Many of you choose to interact with such…..And why not?
    It's nice and easy...
    It’s so easy to win an argument against him…..
    It’s so nice to find out yet again that Argentineans are like that…..

    In connection with the Malvinas Issue,………… My ”unhealthy obsession with where people come from” derives from the constant and artificial ”boosting” of your native population numbers.

    Myths like : ”3.000 or more 8th /9th generation Islanders inhabit the Archipelago” are constantly repeated at any given chance in any possible fora.

    Fact is that they are, today, less than 1.400 persons living in Malvinas that are born in the Islands.
    Many of them a youngish first generation.
    Some of them, by your own laws, not even entitled to Citizenship.

    As for you, I would guess, by the accent, that you are a Manc.
    (sorry, can,t control my ”unhealtiness :-)

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Nobody lives in the Malvinas because its a mythical place. The people of the Falkland Islands are British, rather than the descendents of a Spanish prostitute who colonised other places.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    you will wake up ..+ 2.5% up to 20% VAT rate in the next week

    Yes paying tax, you argies dont do tax
    http://www.meattradenewsdaily.co.uk/news/211009/argentina___tax_evasion_and_black_market_money.aspx

    you British ! you need jobs,jobs jobs not crap islands

    But they are our crap islands

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    “Since then, before the United Nations and other international organisations, Argentina has not ceased .to claim sovereignty over these islands situated some 400 nautical miles from her coast, which the British invaded and occupied in 1833. ”

    Ronald Camp 1911: The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands? I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires (sic), now Argentina. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject.
    Happy New Year to all, Good luck for 2011.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    ISOLDE. WESTYSBEST. ZETHE.
    ISOLDE: Some day you will have to understand that intransigence never helps, so, dont complain if we have more serious problems in the future, because that's not only because of our government, your side does not do anything to to find a solution to the conflict, and reject to negotiate like u. n. invoke.
    On the other hand, obviously that i wish the islands to be under argentine sovereignty, but some times life is not exactly like we wish it.
    If the reslutions from the u. n. call both parts to negotiate, it means that we will have to cede a little in our pretentions, and you will have to do the same, if the conversations respecting the sovereignty are renewed, that's what a negotiation is about, ¿do you know what a negotiation is?.
    What i want is to finish with this dispute once and for all, and find a fair solutions for both, and that's all.
    ZETHE: Since the first day i knew you in this forum, i realised since the first moment that you never wanted any solution, you are very happy with the status quo, and i respect your posture, but dont complain, if we have more problems in the future, because part of fault of the actual situation, is because of your country.
    WESTYSBEST: I dont blame only the british for the actual situation, i said that it's inadmisible that the islanders are not included in the negotiation, and that's because of my government.
    Beside, if we are the best or the worst country in the world, that's our problem, it would not prejudice the islanders if the negotiations are renewed, you are using the past as a pathetic excuse, to keep your status quo.
    I already explained that in a negotiation both parts will have to cede a little in their pretentions, notwithstanding the conversations are renewed, the islands wont never be only under argentine sovereignt, be honest like zethe, and recognize that you dont want any fair solution.
    IN SPITE OF OUR DEEP DIFERENCES, I WISH YOU ALL A GOOD 2011.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    err.....I don't think they're crap islands. And if you really think they're crap, and Britain's crap, then why do you all expend so much energy worrying about it? Apart from having a chip on both shoulders that is.
    I couldn't care less how crap Argentina is.Obviously, the more crap the better, but I actually find it completely uninteresting. You just get on with it and so will we.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 03:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    This continued whining from Argentina is so tiring. I can't believe there is a whole country of spoiled petulant children.
    This is how I see the Falklands situation;
    UK is a grown up, Argentina is a child, UK has a bike that has been in his family for lets say 100 yrs, it's always been there always will be, but for some reason this little kid Argentina thinks the bike is his, and every time he sees the grown up or the bike he whines
    “that is my bike”
    UK politely “no it not, go away”
    “that is my bike”
    NO ITS NOT GO AWAY!
    my father says you have to give it to me,
    “I don't care what your father says, GO AWAY!” “
    He is going to beat you up!”
    UGH GO AWAY, Its not your bike never will be and I don't care what your father thinks I know it is my bike.
    So this goes on and on until Argentina steals the bike and the UK goes to his house and takes it back and gives the kid a slap. You would think the kid would have learned after the slap, but he didn't and on and on every time UK leaves their house there is this horrible annoying kid asking for his bike. Some day, and I hope someday soon UK takes the initiative and confronts the Father to get him to explain to his kid to stop bothering the adults and go play in their own yard and leave them alone. Or maybe UK takes the matter on himself and beats the living daylights out the kid once and for all to teach him the lesson he deserves.

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • briton

    4 hours to the new year, and the argentinian losers are still wanting to live in the 19th century never growing up .
    A new year for the free world to advance to peace, but argentina still wishes to fight a childish war of words over dolls, how stupid and very childish can you get, the people are so brainwashed they know not what they do, they wish to fight over something they do not own or never has owned, or never will own, they are slowly turning the falklands islands into the holy grail of stupidity, blind donkeys being led by a goverment led by pure evil and ignorence, we can tell you the truth untill the world freezes but you will never listen, untill argentina is either divided into smaller countries, or wiped out through brain desease, they will never give up doing the devils bidding, poor argentina a land stuck in the past,
    A child that does not want to ever grow up, all this means of course is that the good british peoples will have to stay and protect law abiding peoples from tyranny , long live Great britain, goodby 2010, love 2011

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    @ fredbdc
    nicely put, but you forgot about the kid taking a shit in the post office

    Dec 31st, 2010 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    @116 Axel, happy new year, Vive l'intransigense. of course it helps. if we didn't have it we would agree with everything that you want.
    What you fail to realise is that Argentina has absolutely NO RIGHTS in the Falkland lslands. does your minute peabrain comprehend that?
    NO RIGHTS at all. WHY should we negotiate with you, WHY??????

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 01:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Since the first day i knew you in this forum, i realised since the first moment that you never wanted any solution, you are very happy with the status quo, and i respect your posture, but dont complain, if we have more problems in the future, because part of fault of the actual situation, is because of your country.”

    For once i agree with you 100% You can quote this from me, i would see argentina burn before i would see your nation take british peoples human rights for granted.

    There is nothing democratic about your so called claim to the islanders lives.

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    @Axel

    “you are using the past as a pathetic excuse, ”

    That is soooo rich coming from an Argentinian, what is the basis of your claim to the Falklands then?

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 09:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    if we have more problems in the future, because part of fault of the actual situation, is because of your country

    Well we seem to be doing ok with 4 aircraft 1 naval ship and 2,ooo service men and women.Argentina kept at bay with a military force that size lol

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 10:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Axel, why should the UK negotiate? WE don't have a problem!

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 11:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Be serious

    Brazil and Argentina are two big Countries with plenty of natural resources and powerful military forces. Either could dominate the entire South American Continent. Which is best?
    I can't decide...........!

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    powerful military forces

    Brazil maybe

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Brazil and Argentina are two big Countries with plenty of natural resources and powerful military forces.”

    No, brazil is a “big” country with a powerful military force.

    Argentina has about as much military power as a fart in a handbag.

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 07:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Argentina has about as much military power as a fart in a handbag

    And twice as nasty

    Jan 01st, 2011 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @118 Ever wondered why this child named Argentina asks that you return your bike? Why do you insist so much? There will be a little bit reason?
    Foreign Office officials were asked why this child insisted on his bike. studied this case.
    Ronald Camp 1911: The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands? I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires (sic), now Argentina. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject.
    Letter from Ambassador Sir Malcolm Robertson to Sir Ronald Lindsay (1928)
    ”With regard to the Falkland Islands, I have always thought, since I read the memorandum from the Foreign Office Bernhardt December 1910, that our claim to the islands is very weak indeed. Actually it is based on force and little else . This view seems to have been maintained by successive British governments since the days of Lord Palmerston, because they have made efforts to prevent the truth being proclaimed. I realize that the islands are of vital strategic value to us and we can not give up them, no matter how fair or unfair that may be our position. All I want is to continue the policy of previous governments and remain silent. I do not think that the Argentine government this issue seriously unless you force them out of resentment to their regular and periodic reinforcement stitches of your claim. (...) We maintain our demand to maintain the occupation, which is far stronger than a number of notes that can only lead to unpleasant disputes and may eventually lead to the Argentine government the suggestion of referring the whole matter to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands”

    Good point. i'll tell you what.

    You get the people who were living on the islands when we annexed the islands, and we'l hold a court case in the ICJ to see who's human rights are the most relivant.

    Oh wait, that was 200 years ago.

    Oh, human rights didnt exist back then.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Zethee, “The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands”
    Answer: I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires, now Argentina.
    finally ANNEXED the islands?
    “Oh wait, that was 200 years ago.” and we're still here, demanding.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “and we're still here, demanding.”

    And we're still here, ignoring you.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 04:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    “Oh wait, that was 200 years ago.” and we're still here, demanding

    200 years, how long will it take the Argies to grow up?

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    And we're still here, ignoring you. Imperialist habit.
    200 years, how long will it take the UK for grow up and talk?
    And we're still here, demanding, until justice is done.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “how long will it take the UK for grow up and talk?”

    The moment the residents decide they want to talk, we'll talk.

    untill then, argentina can piss off.

    :)

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 05:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    “The moment the residents decide they want to talk, we'll talk.”
    That's the excuse UK: “All I want is to continue the policy of previous governments and remain silent.”☻

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 06:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • fredbdc

    OMG, Is this not exactly what my post said?! I think Arg needs a little slap to remember who is boss and who is right...again. Maybe they need one every 30 yrs or so because the sting has worn off?

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “That's the excuse UK”

    Yes, our “excuse” is human rights.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 06:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    And humans rigths of the resident de 1833?

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Human rights living memory!

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7026833.stm

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “And humans rigths of the resident de 1833”

    Firstly. Human rights were not in existance until 1948. A movement which the UK had a massive part in.

    Secondly. the human rights of the living will always outweigh the rights of the dead.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Mister, will not divert attention, we speak of the Malvinas.
    Human rights living memory.
    Are the least suited to talk about it.
    But in the absence of arguments, nice try.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Theres nothing to talk about, british peoples human rights are not up for discussion.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Zethee, ”Firstly. Human rights were not in existance until 1948. A movement which the UK had a massive part in.
    Secondly. the human rights of the living will always outweigh the rights of the dead.
    Of course, accommodate human rights according to your convenience.
    Here is a dead: Malvinas was our land even before our birth as an independent nation. Stolen by an imperial power, we are still people of Malvinas expelled from their land.
    Marcelo Vernet, great- great grandson of the first Argentine military commander in the islands.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 09:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Of course, accommodate human rights according to your convenience”

    it's difficult for people to claim human rights 150 years after they died. especially hard for people to claim a right of a law that was not in existance while they were alive.

    it's very difficult to argue in court that someone who has been dead for one hundred and fifty years should have more rights to a peice of land than the people who are currently living there, and have been for longer than any group of people in the history of our world.

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 09:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Marcelo Vernet, great- great grandson of a great great loser.

    Argentine wine = Good
    Argentine whine = Not Good

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    Of course Zethee, accommodate human rights according to your convenience, no matter the robbery committed.
    @147
    Still not said the final word
    Argentine wine = Good
    British Humor= Good
    British cover their ears = Not Good
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOOevQ7g5zU

    Jan 02nd, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    Take human rights in it's pure, unaltered meaning of the word malvinese.

    Still doesn't support your argument. We're supporting the islanders human rights.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    The respect for the inhabitants of the islands is enshrined in our constitution.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Returning to my original point, which part of NO don't you understand?

    Simply asking for something you cannot have is tedious.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    No it isn't, Mal. If you had any respect for us you'd leave us alone.
    I've heard Argentines speak of respecting our 'interests'. Is this what it says in your constitution?
    How can you think that our 'wishes' and' interests' could be different? How could it be in our best interests to live under a regime that we absolutely don't want?

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Marcos Alejandro

    149 Zethee “We're supporting the islanders human rights”
    Which ones Zethee? The ones that UK Gov. treated them as second class citizens before 1982 or the ones expelled from their homes in Chagos Islands?

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 03:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Which ones Zethee? The ones that UK Gov. treated them as second class citizens before 1982 ”

    And yet, they still choose to stay British.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 03:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ Returning to my original point, which part of it is THIS don't you understand?
    Ever wondered why this child named Argentina asks that you return your bike? Why do you insist so much? There will be a little bit reason?
    Foreign Office officials were asked why this child insisted on his bike. studied this case.
    Ronald Camp 1911: The only question is: Who did have the best claim when we finally annexed the islands? I think undoubtedly the United Provinces of Buenos Aires (sic), now Argentina. We cannot easily make out a good claim and we have wisely done everything to avoid discussing the subject.
    Letter from Ambassador Sir Malcolm Robertson to Sir Ronald Lindsay (1928)
    ”With regard to the Falkland Islands, I have always thought, since I read the memorandum from the Foreign Office Bernhardt December 1910, that our claim to the islands is very weak indeed. Actually it is based on force and little else . This view seems to have been maintained by successive British governments since the days of Lord Palmerston, because they have made efforts to prevent the truth being proclaimed. I realize that the islands are of vital strategic value to us and we can not give up them, no matter how fair or unfair that may be our position. All I want is to continue the policy of previous governments and remain silent. I do not think that the Argentine government this issue seriously unless you force them out of resentment to their regular and periodic reinforcement stitches of your claim. (...) We maintain our demand to maintain the occupation, which is far stronger than a number of notes that can only lead to unpleasant disputes and may eventually lead to the Argentine government the suggestion of referring the whole matter to the International Court of Justice in The Hague.
    we should do?
    remain silent and accept their theft?

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    Marvin @148
    There's no such thing as British 'Humor', thats the US English spelling.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Foreign office officials are civil servants ... nothing more - clerks!

    The opinions of long dead clerks carry no weight and are not 'evidence' of any kind. If you want influential opinions check out those of David Cameron :-)

    Of course you could always go to the ICJ

    Couple of things to think about -

    1. Robertson was Ambassador to Argentina from 1929 to 1932 (not 1928)
    2. The ICJ was established in 1945

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • stick up your junta

    Which ones Zethee? The ones that UK Gov. treated them as second class citizens before 1982 or the ones expelled from their homes in Chagos Islands?

    So we expell the Falklanders,cos we did it in Chagos

    How are the Argie second class citizens doing?

    BUENOS AIRES, Jun 12, 2006 (IPS) - “We have endured 500 years of plunder, humiliation, eviction and massacres; why wouldn't we be able to bear a little cold and hunger now?” Orlando Charole, one of the leaders of a group of indigenous people who have been pursuing their land claims in the northeastern Argentine province of Chaco for the past month, asked IPS.

    http://ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=33582

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    I've now seen three sets of dates for when Robertson was in Argentina - some confusion it seems, not that that affects my point.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    155 Malvinense 1833 '@ Returning to my original point, which part of it is THIS don't you understand?'
    I understand what you're saying. I just don't think that what some foreign office clerk had to say in 1911 is either important or relevant to my situation now. I actually couldn't care less about Ronald Camp and neither should you. No-0ne is going to hand us over to your tender mercies on the basis of that. Get a grip man.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 12:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @156 Wireless, british humor=good Mr. Bean and Benny Hill hahaha
    @158 Red, “Foreign office officials are civil servants ... nothing more - clerks!” = Prime Minister Cameron!!!
    “The opinions of long dead clerks carry no weight and are not 'evidence' of any kind.” These views are important, they are men who have access to documentation, are important part of a government. Tony Blair commissioned a study by historian Sir Lawrence Freedman I do not know if you had all the access to information.
    If I made a mistake with Robertson, I apologize, I will find out well the data. As for the Court, do not forget that before the present Court, was the Permanent Court of Justice in The Hague, founded in 1921.
    @ 160 Monty, then I answer, it's late and I'm going to work. Bye.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    ZETHE. WESTYSBEST. ISOLDE.
    If all of you think that my country does not have any right on the island, i respect it, i already explained planty of times about the historic and legal aspects of our claim, obviously i wont do it again, i said too that the only one apsect which is relevant for me, are the opinions of the diferent professors of international who i included in my survey, all what you can say, is as respectable as our arguments, but i dont take it as valid to incorporate it to the knowleadge that need to have.
    Academic people knows much more than you an i, accept it or not.
    Finally i can't forget about remembering today the 178 aniversary of the british usurpation in Port Soledad, (east Falkland), i'm absolutly sure that in 22 years the british and the islanders will celebrate the bicenteneal of the british usurpation, and we will keep on claming as usuall, although we all know that we wont never get anything from the u.k., unfortunately such an admirabe nation like great britain continues being the same thief that it was 178 years ago, shamefull but it's the truth.
    I dont know what's going to be the situation of my country in 22 years, in spite that some idiots wish it becomes poorer than zinbawe.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 08:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Axel, one historical aspect you have yet to explain is how Argentina inherited rights, title or anything for that matter from Spain - in the Falklands or elsewhere. This is a crucial point to which, by definition, all your other “historical aspects” are subsidiary.

    Perhaps you could explain this now?

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 08:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Think

    TWIMC
    http://www.dipublico.com.ar/instrumentos/72.html

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Ann Other

    Thats a point, in June next year we can celebrate the 30th anniversary of the failure of the Argentine 'usurpation' . But as to your country, in 22 years it will probably be as corrupt a mess as it is today, more children will have died of starvation people will queue up for hours to pay their electricity bills and you can still complain about the Falkland Islands being British to take your mind off being a failed state.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    “I dont know what's going to be the situation of my country in 22 years, in spite that some idiots wish it becomes poorer than zinbawe.”

    It's not a wish Axel, merely a forecast.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • xbarilox

    What a success, 167 comments!

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Marvin - still quote wrong. Old opinions are weightless, modern opinions are where it's at ... and Cameron has the power NOW.

    Jan 03rd, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @160 Ok Monty, I respect your opinion, what these officials say is important, because they show that Argentina's claims with reason.
    @163, Roberts, one historical aspect you have yet to explain is how UK you have sovereignty over the Islands Malvinas
    First discovered the islands?
    First occupied the islands?
    The first governor?
    Knows what nationality were the first children born in the islands?
    Perhaps you could explain this now?

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Domingo

    @164: Think, with regards to the recognition of Argentina by Spain ratified in 1860, it did not include the Malvinas, which are now known as the Falkland Islands:

    1. The Malvinas were administrated by the Spanish in Montevideo and Uruguay remained loyal to Spain and did not evacuate the Malvinas on 25 May 1810 so this Spanish recognition treaty does not apply to the Malvinas

    2. Argentina's military command by Mestivier of October 1832 was a breach of Spain's Nootka Sound (San Lorenzo) treaty with the UK and gave UK legal rights to intervene accorded by Spain to the UK under Article 6

    3. Spain did not protest the UK's claim and assertion of sovereignty of the Falklands in 1833 and never contested it again

    4. Argentina previously accepted the UK's assertion of sovereignty on the Malvinas in its ratification in 1850 of the Convention between Great Britain and the Argentine Confederation for the Settlement of existing Differences and the re-establishment of Friendship when Argentina stated that existing differences had been settled and perfect friendship existed with Great Britain.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Marvin, while you are awaiting a reply from Mr. Roberts, perhaps you could explain the nature of Argentina's claim to South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.

    First discovered the islands?
    First occupied the islands?
    The first governor?

    Perhaps you could explain this now?

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    @163, Roberts, one historical aspect you have yet to explain is how UK you have sovereignty over the Islands Malvinas

    First discovered the islands?
    - Probably Britain but it might have been the Portuguese or Dutch (it certainly was not anyone from Argentina as Argentina did not exist then)

    First occupied the islands?
    - Britain (well a Briton was the first to land there)

    The first governor?
    - What about him? He was Spanish. Nothing to do with Argentina.

    Knows what nationality were the first children born in the islands?
    - Tengo ni puta idea. And how is that relevant? I guess it depended on the nationality of their parents? Laws for nationality were very different then and very flexible. The first children born there were certainly not Argentine - more likely Spanish or British or whatever their parent's nationality was.

    Perhaps you could explain this now?
    - Done.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    And Britain was the first to claim them ....... important, no?

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @ 172 Thank you Roberts, you showed me that no tiene una puta idea de nada.
    @170 and 171
    Now it's too late to respond, I answer will later.
    But why some Brits say this:
    Troutbeck 1.936: “ The Difficulty of the position is that our sizure of the Falklands islands in 1.833 was so arbitrary a procedure as judged by the ideology of the present day.
    It is therefore not easy to explain our possession without showing ourselves up as INTERNATIONAL BANDITS.”
    Question the Spanish and Argentine actions, but do not says why the islands are British. Say it.
    First discovered the islands?
    First occupied the islands?
    The first governor?
    Knows what nationality were the first children born in the islands?
    Unanswered questions.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Marvin, You haven't answered mine either !

    “ ... as judged by the ideology of the present day....”

    Taking matters out of their historical context is never a good idea !

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    164 Think (#)
    www.dipublico.com.ar/instrumentos/72.html
    “con arreglo al decreto de las Cortes generales del Reino, de 4 de diciembre de 1826 renuncia en toda forma y para siempre por sí y sus sucesores, la soberanía, derechos y acciones que le correspondían sobre el territorio de la mencionada República.”

    There's a mistake in that page. The Spanish Constitution of 1812 had forbidden the Spanish monarch to relinquish territory and the decree mentioned above enabled the monarch to override that prohibition. But the decree was passed by the Cortes Generales of Spain in 1836, not 1826

    http://www.cacheirofrias.com.ar/tratado_de_reconocimiento_de_espana_-_1863.htm

    con arreglo al decreto de las Cortes Generales del Reino de 4 de diciembre de 1836, renuncia en toda forma y para siempre, por sí y sus sucesores, la soberanía, derechos y acciones que le correspondían sobre el territorio de la mencionada República.

    English version from Google books
    http://www.cacheirofrias.com.ar/tratado_de_reconocimiento_de_espana_-_1863.htm

    in accordance with the Decree of the General Cortes of the Kingdom of the 4th of December 1836 renounces in every form and for ever for herself and her successors the sovereignty rights and actions which belonged to her over the territory of the said Republic.

    Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its territories in the Americas until 1836, and when it recognised Argentina in 1859 it was not in a position to cede its claim to the Falklands to Argentina.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 06:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    @ 172 Thank you Roberts, you showed me that no tiene una puta idea de nada.

    I'll let your own contributions speak for themselves. There's nothing to add except that I'd love to see your answers to Redhoyt's question above.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • WestisBest

    @169

    “First discovered the islands?
    First occupied the islands?
    The first governor?
    Knows what nationality were the first children born in the islands?”

    Hardly pertinant anyway, try some of these on Argentina Mal:

    Who originally discovered and occupied South America?
    Who originally lived and flourished for hundreds of generations in South America?
    Who built the first cities, infrastructure and industry in South America?
    What nationality were the first (and following hundreds of generations of) children born in South America?

    If your disengenuous historical precedants have any relevence then surely these factual ones do as well.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • dab14763

    169 Malvinense 1833 (#)

    “@160 Ok Monty, I respect your opinion, what these officials say is important, because they show that Argentina's claims with reason.”

    Until you show what these officials based their opinions on, it isn't and they don't.

    “@163, Roberts, one historical aspect you have yet to explain is how UK you have sovereignty over the Islands Malvinas”

    The UK was the first state to establish full effective control over the whole archipelago and that was after 1833.

    “First discovered the islands?”

    Portuguese sailors, probably

    “First occupied the islands?”

    The islands as a whole: The British, after 1833. Territory is occupied when it is placed under effective control.

    “The first governor?”

    The first to govern Port Louis: Bougainville.
    The first to govern the whole archipelago: A British official after 1833.

    “Knows what nationality were the first children born in the islands?”

    French. There were children born during Bougainville's settlement.

    In short, none of the above firsts involves Argentina.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    ANN OTHER. WESTYSBEST. J. A. ROBERT.
    ANN OTHER, WESTYSBEST: When i say that some of you are really idiots, unfortunately i 'm not wrong.
    I respect the fact that the islanders reject to be part of argentina, i know that most them dont hate us, except for a recalcitrant and idiot minority, and maybe you both join that group.
    Anyway beyond the wishes of all us, including you, as long as your side keeps on rejecting to discuss with my country about a negotiated solution, it's hightly probable that we have more of the problems that we had during 2010, so, dont complain, and be responsable of your own intransigence.
    Regarding our future, althoug we become into poorer that namibia, it does not change in absolut our claim, like it or not you will have to live with them, beside if you think that the reality of my country is only what you read on mercopress or in buenos aires herald etc etc, that shows how ignorant nad misinformed you are.
    JASON: I know that spain never ceded anything to argentina, in fact it didn't even had renounced to the sovereignty, but it does not mean that we could not occupy a territory that belonged to the former viceroalty, i already explained you about that role of international right.
    We had right to occupy unless the soledad island (east falkland), if the u.k. had any right on the islands, it was only on the gran malvina (west falkland).
    Spain abandonned the islands in 1811, and our country as sucessor of the rights of spain, had right to occupy unless that island, even the british professors who i included in my survey coincid with this assertion, i dont think you know more than a professor.
    Anyway exercising an effective control, which is what the international right exacts, was very difficult for the united provinces, because it was going trought hard periods of intern wars.
    There is a lot more to add about this issue, but i have no space here, i have a good bibliography, i hope i can publish it the soon.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “role of international right.”
    There were no international laws or rights in the 1800's axel.

    The closest thing to it were treaties and pacts signed between countrys. Unless your “right” was signed by the UK then it held no status as law in the UK.

    Jan 04th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    180 axel arg
    ''it's hightly probable that we have more of the problems that we had during 2010, so, dont complain, and be responsable of your own intransigence.''

    No,no, no, Axel. The 'problems' of 2010 were due to your unreasonable expectations and your mean, cowardly and illegal ways of trying to fulfil them. And don't you dare tell me not to complain. I'll never stop complaining about disgraceful behaviour wherever I encounter it.

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Axel - still making mistakes.

    I've told you that Uti Possedeitis Juris was not an international law in 1833.

    Dab's told you that Spain did not relinquish is sovereignty claim to the islands in a811 - so it did not ';abandon' them, as Britain has not 'abandoned' them in the 1770's.

    The dispute was ONLY between Spain and Britain - Argentina was, at best, a 3rd Party.

    Still got a lot to learn, no?

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    @Axel

    First you say this:
    “I know that spain never ceded anything to argentina”

    Then you say this:
    “and our country as sucessor of the rights of spain”

    Well if Spain never ceded anything they how can you be successor to any Spanish rights? Axel, you call us “really idiots”, yet your own contradiction shows the opposite. It is only you who who appears to be slightly idiotic.

    Please Axel explain exactly how Argentina inherited any rights or title to any territory from Spain. You say you have “already explained you about that role of international right”. Yet nowhere in your previous posts can I find an explanation for the basis on which Argentina gained rights or title to any territory (Falklands and elsewhere) from Spain.

    I would love to hear your explanation.

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Please Axel explain exactly how Argentina inherited any rights or title to any territory from Spain.”

    After you've explained this please explain how a law in spain at the time equates to a law in england.

    Unless the UK personally signed said law, it held no power in the UK.

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 03:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    J. A. ROBERT. REDHOYT. MONTY69. ZETHE.
    J. A. ROBERT: Read my last comment again, and you'll see that i didn't call you idiot, i only meant those two morons who i answered in my comment 180.
    If you defend them because you feel solidarity, i understand it, but ¿how can i call some one who makes fun at the situation of my country?, answer me please.
    JASON. REDHOYT. ZETHE.
    I already said that, BRITISH professor, doctor M. Akehurst from the university from keele, argued that when a nascent state declares it's independence, it inherites all the territory inside of the former colonial limits, that's the utti possidettis, it was promulgated many years after 1833, but it existed in 1810, and it was used before by diferent countries to keep their borders, after the independence.
    Hes memorandum is very interesting, he made a distinction of the occupations of both islands, and that's why i say that if the u.k. had any sovereign right, it was only on the West Falkland, another BRITISH professor called Deas, coincid with most Akehurst say.
    On the other hand, invoking the discovering is a very weak argument, even d.r. Whestocke (lawyer of the queen), said that it has to be accompanyed by occupation, maybe it's true that the british discovered the islands, but they occupy the west falkland untill 1764, the other island was in total control of Spain for 45 years untill 1811.
    You all know that i will always respect your postures, but i already told you too what is relevant for me, unless that all of you are professors in international right, i am not, but i base part of knowleadge in the words of academic compatriots.
    MONTY69: Keep on complaining all that you want, i only tell how pathetic it locks, if you reject to find a negotiated solution, and after you play the victim, maybe you are also part of that recalcitrant and idiot minority of islanders who suffer of argentinophobia, in that case, there is nothing else to do.

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    M. Akehurst's book, Called....Modern Introduction to International Law talks about international law.

    There was no international law in the 1800's, as i said earlier. How can you claim rights of laws before they even exist?

    ”invoking the discovering is a very weak argument, even d.r. Whestocke (lawyer of the queen), said that it has to be accompanyed by occupation”

    Like, 200 years of occupation?

    Either way, the history of it means squat in this day and age axel. theres NO way that a moldy old peice of 200 year old paper signing a treaty has more rights that current, breathing human beings.

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Monty69

    186 axel arg
    I think you'll find that a majority of islanders have an entirely reasonable objection to being forced to become Argentines against their will.
    I wouldn't want to become French, Chilean, American.......does that mean I hate them?? No. Am I 'Francophobic'? No. Am I suffering 'Argentophobia'?? You can think what you like, but calling me an 'idiot minority' is just ignorant and wrong.
    And I'm not 'playing the victim', I am a victim, of you. I've dealt with a few playground bullies over the years and that's what you sound like. If
    I hand over my tuck money you won't have to be mean any more; is that it? Grow up.

    Jan 05th, 2011 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Axel - no 'experts' opinion carries any weight unless tested in a court of law.

    Until then it is merely 'opinion'.

    The ICJ is your only option.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Malvinense 1833

    @170 Domingo, 1) read best the article 1. The Malvinas were part of the Viceroyalty of Río de la Plata. Article 1 applies to the Malvinas.
    2)- Before Mestivier, Jewett, Mason, Vernet ... Nootka Sound is another treatise against UK. By this treaty Spain relinquished all claims to the northwest of America to change the British could not sail within 10 miles from any part of the coast already occupied by Spain.
    It is further agreed with respect to the eastern and western coast of South America and the island adjacent, that the respective subjects shall not form in the future any establishment on the parts of the same coast and of the island adjacent already occupied by Spain; it being understood that the said respective subjects shall retain the liberty of landing on the coast and islands so situated for object with their fishing.
    The practical effect of this convention was to open the seas to the british only for purposes of navigation. The islands surrounfing Tierra del Fuego and further south, such a South Georgia, were the only places, however, were the british were allowed to land, and this temporality. The terms of the sixth article by inference forbade any landing at the Falklands as they were a place already occupied by Spain. Consequently, even if we could assume that the british has up to this time kept alive their claim to the group, it was extinguished by this instrument, which precluded any possible perfection of the claim by actual possession. It was only by possession that the british could transmite their claim into a rigth, and the means having been formally renounced, the claim itself elapsed.
    3) Spain had no reason to protest, the islands were under the sovereignty of Argentina.4)-The peace treaty with Great Britain, signed at Versailles, January 20, 1783, makes no reference to the Malvinas. British surrender in Buenos Aires. Britain did not mention the Malvinas 1806 and 1807 Treaty of Friendship, Commerce and Navigation, Britain does not mention the

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 04:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “Before Mestivier, Jewett, Mason, Vernet ... Nootka Sound is another treatise against UK”

    specifically, you mean: “stipulated that British subjects shall not navigate nor carry on their fishery in the said seas within the distance of 10 maritime leagues from any part of the coast already occupied by Spain.”

    In 1833, when the islands were reclaimed by the british, argentina had declaired independance 22 years before the landing's at the islands, and the islands were under Argentinian control.

    How, then...Does that break the Nootka Sound agreement when spain no longer had any territory in the area...?

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • lsolde

    Axel, get lost, don't give us anymore gobble-de-gook or double-speak, just go away.
    1)they are NOT your islands, your country has NO RIGHTS here (like it or not).
    2) they are OUR islands & WE have full RIGHTS here(whether you like it or not).
    3) we DO NOT have to“negotiate”anything with you.& we are NOT going to.
    4) stop your silly threats, that you cannot carry out anyway.
    You are making yourself sound ridiculous.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 09:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Erm Malvinense. The Nootka Sound Convention was an agreement between Spain and Britain. It had nothing to do with Argentina. Argentina did not even exist when the agreement was signed. And since Argentina was not granted independence by Spain it gained no rights or title from Spain. Argentina took its independence and what territory it could by force. Time to get over the FACT that the Falklands have never been Argentine.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    Marvin - it is highly doubtful that Nootka Sound applied to the Falkland Islands in any case as the distance from the mainland hardly makes them 'adjacent'. If Nootka Sound does apply then Argentina is a 3rd party under the terms of the secret clause. Either way Argentina loses.

    The matter lay between Spain and Britain right up to 1833, Argentina was irrelevant.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 01:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    ZETHE. MONTY69. ISOLDE. J. A.
    ZETHE: When you read professor Akehurst's memorandum, you will give your opinion, anyway, your posture is respectable, but you are ignoring very important aspects of the question.
    If the resolutions from the u. n. call both sides to negotaite pacefully, and none of them affirm that self dtermination is applicable to the cause, like it does with other resolutions respecting decolonization issues, maybe you should rethink some of your arguments, i really think that you are not being objetive in absolut, specialy when you say that you are happy with status quo, what you are doing is, to ignore the calling from the u. n. and the international comunity to negotiate pacefully.
    I suggest you AGAIN to read resolution 2353, which reffers the gibraltar question, there you'll find what's the thought about territorial integrity that the u. n. has.
    MONTY69:
    I will always understand the rejection of the islanders to the fact of being part of argentina, i know that most them dont hate us, except for a recalcitrant and idiot minority, there are actualy strong cultural reasons that they have to reject our sovereign rights
    However, intransigence never helps, i said in many oportunitys that it's inadmisible that the islanders are not included in the negotiation, some day your side will have to understand that our rights are as legitimate as yours, your problem s that your side does not want to find any fair solution for both.
    Forget about our constitution, or the words our politicians, if the u. n. call both sides to negotiate, it means that both will have to cede a little in their pretentions, in this way, it's not imposible to find a solution that respects the rights and wishes of both, now my question is, ¿is your side dispossed to find a fair solution?, i dont think so, i hope i am wrong.
    ISOLDE: Keep on complaining all that you want, it does not worth to debate with intransigent morons like you.
    J. A..: Answer my comment 186 please.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Axel, re #186 apologies. I assumed I was included.

    Please answer my question in comment #184. By the way, the stuff about Dr Akehurst's opinion is not an answer my question, it's his opinion and what's more, the territory and borders of the “nascent state”, Argentina, could not be more different from from “territory inside of the former colonial limits”, the Viceroyalty.

    I'll repeat the question.

    On what BASIS did Argentina inherit any rights or title to territory from Spain?

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 04:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Zethee

    “u. n. call both sides to negotaite pacefully, and none of them affirm that self dtermination is applicable to the cause”

    You mean the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization?

    The same United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization has stated that in the process of decolonization there is no alternative to the colonizer's allowance of self-determination.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 06:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    I'd just like to add, that honestly axel, you are the most insulting person on this website:

    “and none of them affirm that self dtermination is applicable to the cause”

    You repeat this over and over, you're sitting there telling me that my countrymen, british citizens aren't entitled to basic human rights?

    Honestly, your country can rot for all i care.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • axel arg

    J. A. ROBERT.
    I have been thinking about it, and i have the conclution that maybe the right words are not inherance or sucession, i know that Spain never ceded anything to argentina, in fact, it recognized our independence in 1863, even the u.k. made it before our motherland, in 1825.
    But the point is that when one state declares it's independence, it has right to occupy all the territorys that were inside of the colonial limits, that's a role, and it's unquestionable, if have always used the words inherance or sucession, because those were what i found in the bibliographys , even diferent british professors coincided with them, i only interpret what i read, but i recognize i never made any deep analysis about the inherance and sucession.
    Beside, spain never protested when the united provinces made diferent intents to try to occupy the malvinas, i already told that achiving an effective control was very difficult for our country, because it was going trought hard periods of intern wars, only betwen 1828 and 1833 there were more permanent settlements, one of the last was destroyed by the intervention the u.s.a by the lexington, the point is that unless the soledad island was not res nullius in 1833, what the british did was a total violation of our rights, when you read d.r. Akehurt's memorandum, you will know why the u.k. had right to occupy only the gran malvina (west falkland).
    Anyway i decided that i wont discuss anymore about historic facts untill i publish my survey, because there are a lot o aspects that we must take into account, and i have no space to explain them here.
    On the other hand, it's important to signalize that the history is always submitted to distortions, omitions or diferent interpretations, but there are some historic facts that can't be refuted by none of the parts of the conflict, when you make a comparison betwen them, and the international right, then, you are closer to the truth.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Wireless

    I find it fascinating that axel believes we have only the right to occupy West Falkland (based on one man's opinion), yet East Falkland, which is further away from Argentina isn't within our rights??!??

    Axel, I believe you're going to get to the truth one day, and unfortunately you'll spend all this time & effort on the subject only to realise the truth is that the Falkland Islands really are British; I realise this is something that will cause you some considerable consternation, as it will go against everything you have ever learned, but unfortunately it is the truth.

    Not many men have such revelations, so in some respects I am envious that you will experience it.

    Look at it this way, if in 1825 the UK did not mention Argentine efforts to colonise the Falkland Islands, and from this you extrapolate that the UK therefore accepts the situation of UP Sovereignty of the Islands.

    Then why can you not look at the Convention of Settlement in 1850, where Argentina did not mention the occupation of the Falkland Islands by the British, and also extrapolate that Argentina therefore accepts the situation of British Sovereignty of the Islands? Since at that point in history the treaty tells us that there are no areas of disagreement and that 'perfect relations' exist between our two countries?

    So when Spain recognised your Independence in 1863, it recognised the borders you maintained at that time in history.

    You have to admit that you cannot have the argument both ways here.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • zethe

    “only betwen 1828 and 1833 there were more permanent settlements”

    Vernet's settlement. the main point behind Argentinas cliam to the islands.

    Who submitted his land grant to the British Consulate on the 30'th of jan 1828. And on april 25th 1829 was reported to again ask for british protection of the islands. Then in june asked the British to invest in his colony.

    “Look at it this way, if in 1825 the UK did not mention Argentine efforts to colonise the Falkland Islands, and from this you extrapolate that the UK therefore accepts the situation of UP Sovereignty of the Islands.”
    Uk wasn't aware of Argentine attempts to colonise the islands at that time because the first attempt to offically colonise the islands was Vernet.

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 08:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • J.A. Roberts

    Axel, thank you for your answer. I have a couple more questions.

    You say this: “...the point is that when one state declares it's independence, it has right to occupy all the territorys that were inside of the colonial limits, that's a role, and it's unquestionable...”

    In that case why does the Argentina of today not equal the same territory/borders of the former Viceroyalty? How do you account for countries like Uruguay, Paraguay, Bolivia etc? Surely they should also all belong to Argentina - if what you say above is correct.

    You also say: “...spain never protested when the united provinces made diferent intents to try to occupy the malvinas...”

    How could Spain protest to a country it did not recognise?

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Redhoyt

    “ .... and it's unquestionable,.....”

    Now that would be a rare thing indeed !

    Jan 06th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!