MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Unilateral facts, indeed
By Andrés Cisneros for the Herald
Peter Pepper and Graham Pascoe, who have spent years writing profusely on the issue, have just written a new article seeking to enlighten us on Malvinas rights. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSo the pertinent points of this article are:
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) The UK needs to put those individuals responsible for the invasions of BA in 1806 and 1807 on trial. I better get my spade out of the shed then!
2) Argentina is powerless to change the status quo.
Yep, I agree with those two points.
I understand what this reporter means I live with those ideas in my head all the time, not many people take their time to write this things properly as if they didn't care for the outcome of the problem. we are all watching carefully.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not a bad article at all, reasonable, conciliatory. There is however one huge omission in the Argentine argument:
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islanders.
We're here and we have rights, this is the way it is no matter how dismissive Argentinans are about our status or what perfidy Britain has visited on other people in the past, there are three parties in this issue, not two.
2 I
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'I live with those ideas in my head all the time'
You poor thing; you should get out more and get a life.
Bit angry isn't he, one could categorise that as a rant, noticably long on rhetoric but short on facts. As well as repeating the same falsehood, Argentina has always scrupulously avoided any legal forum and “a peaceful agreement, honourable for both sides.” Since when was Argentina interested in anything but getting its own way.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's the old problem with the Falklands debate, there is no middle ground that is accepatable to all (or in fact any) of the parties involved. By refusing to discuss the issue Britain is merely avoiding wasting any time on an issue that cannot be resolved.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British are getting no money for this, the British government should be paying them some good money. They're doing this ad honotem and it's not fair!!!! Cheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!
Feb 06th, 2011 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”The Parthenon friezes or the Rosetta stone (among many other spoils) might some day be returned but non-renewable resources are a very different matter. Those who do that deserve some very specific names.” The name is Thieves! This people destroyed everything they touch. But here are people with a different point of view, so what these lying posters are saying it's not true. I guess they will call these British traitors, I have no doubt about it. It's not like these liars say, that all British people believe what they believe. But they're always trying to keep these people's mouths shut. These people are still alive, and they will make a change in the UK, it will come to the UK sooner or later. It doesn't matter how long it takes.
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/larkin_pubs/older/rrcb/rrcb-00.htm
http://www.rcgfrfi.easynet.co.uk/larkin_pubs/older/rrcb/rrcb-00.htm
By refusing to discuss the issue Britain is merely protracting an issue that can and will be resolved.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats quite a long way of effectively say he disagreed with Pascoe and Pepper :)
Feb 06th, 2011 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But on the plus side it means some people in Argentina are actually noticing that there is a different side to this dispute.
Think.....it can and will be resolved...but unfortunaley (or luckily) Argentine negotiators have been consistently stupid with their stubbornness in refusing to afford the recognition of self-determination that the islanders deserve...that is the sticking point...and you wonder why we refuse to negotiate with a country that wants the land but has issues with its inhabitants....
Must be quite hard as the descendents of conquistadors when instead of rolling over pathetically and taking it....the natives turn around and say they have more rights to land than you lol :)
Think - let us hypothesize how the negotiations would go.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First hurdle - it would be a three way negation involving the UK, ARG and FIG. Unlikely as Arg would refuse this as it would recognize the FIG. But let us pretend that you suprised us.
Arg - we want a transfer of soverignty of Islas Malvinas.
UK - this is an issue for the FIG.
FIG - we want to remain a BOT and retain British soverignty over the Falkland Islands.
UK - we support the position of the FIG. If you wish to take the matter to the ICJ then that is your decision.
Arg - MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS.!!!!!!!
Negotiation over.
Think - unless Argentina starts to think more pragmatically about its relationship with the Islanders then there will be no way forward. The ball is on your half of the court (tennis not legal).
(1) Beef
Feb 06th, 2011 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”So the pertinent points of this article are:
The UK needs to put those individuals responsible for the invasions of BA in 1806 and 1807 on trial. I better get my spade out of the shed then”
I say; the pertinent point in Mr. Cisneros Article is:
”The two scholars duly reproach the 1982 war, but we Argentines have long offered self-criticism for those errors as well as placing those responsible on trial, something Britain has never done with its countless invasions across the globe, including two launched against Buenos Aires in 1806 and 1807”
1806 and 1807 is too long ago, I agree…….but…….
What about placing those responsible of the “British Iraq War” on trial?
Or is it too soon?
Mothballing the whole thing for 100 years under your “Secrecy Law” would be a typical British “solution”
As your Government already did it with all the Falklands War documentation……………..
“Freedom of information” anybody
Got no problem with putting people on trial for Iraq and the Iraq enquirey is still ongoing at the moment.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All other wars we have been involved in post 1945 have had sufficient legal backing.
Korea
Falklands
Gulf 1
Serria Leone
Kosovo
Afganistan
Quite a list and apart from Afghanistan (ongoing) we succeeded in liberating a people from an oppression they didn't want.
very interesting isn’t it, they want what they refuse to give to others [freedom of choice] for I believe that if all people on the planet had a referendum to who they would wish to be ruled by, this planet would change over night, so that can never happen, but if you believe in freedom of choice , then the Falkland islanders have a right to choose who they wish to be, but sadly we are now living in a very stupid and corrupt world, where [you can have any colour you like as long as its black] Argentina has quite a few Provinces
Feb 06th, 2011 - 10:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0about 24 who may like to be independent, would Argentina give all its provinces a free referendum to see if they want Argentina, to rule them or to rule themselves, but Argentina will not [will they] sadly you cant please all the people all of the time, only some of the people some of the time, in the case of argentine, they cant please anybody at anytime, why the hell cant Argentina except what the people of the Falklands want, as they do NOT want Argentina, but Argentina demands they come,, cannot the uk, demand Argentina become British against their own will, is this ,not playing the same game as them, or is it, only if Argentina say so, then it ok, but all others will always be in the wrong, this is total rubbish, if Argentina wants the Falklands either give them a vote, or fight for them,
she cant fight for them and she refuses to listen to the free vote that they wish to be British, so how the hall can we deal with a nation that demands everything like a spoilt child, but give nothing back, [just an opinion]
(12 ) Beef
Feb 06th, 2011 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are we not “forgetting” some?..............................
1948 Malayan “Emergency” or “Anti-British National Liberation War”
1952 Kenyan “Emergency” or “Mau Mau Uprising”
1956 Suez Crisis or “Tripartite Agression”
1964 Aden and Rafdan cases
1965 Borneo confrontation or “Konfrontasi”
Not to mention the Troubles in Northern Ireland………………………
Think-1982 - can you show me please where the current Arg Govt has formally and publicly apologised for the events of 1982?
Feb 06th, 2011 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can you also please explain the possible outcome options on any sovereignty discussions when Argentina has it written into their Constitution that the islands are part of Argentina and also consistantly talks about the “return” of the Islands to Argentina and has a Governor already nominated to rule us,regardless of what we - the people who live here may say?
14- I think you will find that those were British territiories at the time - not foreign - not sure about Borneo but if not then guess UK was there at invitation of the Govt of the day which feared invasion and takeover by its neighbour. Suez I grant you - bloody stupid it was as well.
Islander but did you not notice that the original topic has been forgotten once more, thanks to the distraction tactics.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Much like this “rebuttal”, long on rhetoric, short on facts and economical with the truth.
xbox to reply on the other blog ?
Feb 06th, 2011 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... Any specialized lawyer could respond to the casuistry in the Pepper-Pascoe article, the rights and the wrongs ....”
Feb 06th, 2011 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pity the author doesn't include some such responses!
There doesn't appear to be very much in the way of argument, rather the repetition of the Argentine fantasy regarding the displacement of 'their' settlement. As it founders on this first point, it founders on all.
#14 - irrelevant Think and the same goes for the similar points raised by Cisneros. The ONLY issue, if there is one, are the Falkland islands.
And the falklands are british,
Feb 06th, 2011 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0what does it take for others to understand this
its as simple as 1 2 3 even a child can understand this,? well, some children anyway.
I'm actually a little disappointed. A meaty response by a historian/lawyer would have been interesting, but what we got is a politician who avoids mentioning that the only settlement on the islands before October 1882 was there with British permission and, whilst acknowledging the consular ties between Britain and BA fails to note the objections by the British Consul with regard to BA attempting to act as the owners.
Feb 06th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pity ... but I feel this contribution adds nothing ... nothing objective !
agreed, they only get involved when they have interesting comments
Feb 07th, 2011 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0but as they do not ? they just cant argue with the truth, but perhaps a single argie enthusiasts or barrack room lawyer will reply by Christmas lol
Interesting that MercoPress allows the Argentinian side of the story, and I see that the South American islanders have some legitimate concerns but unfornately the Europeans islander 14000 km away work very hard to put tape in their mouths.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0I agree with you, Redhoyt. The article appears not to deal at all with any facts, aside from repeating the distorted Argentine view of events in 1833.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0What it doesn't do at all, is deal with the assertions made by Pepper and Pascoe in relation to the unilateral acts carried out by Argentina since the passing of the UNGA Resolution in 1965. Since this was the subject of the original article, which this opinion piece was supposed to be refuting, one would have expected to see some mention of these acts and how they are justified (or not) from an Argentine point of view. And yet, nothing.
16 Justin - quite correct, the article ,as others say, foundered really on its fixation with 1833 .
Feb 07th, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 022-Marco - what are you rabbiting on about someone in UK putting tape in their mouth? sorry dont follow you.
#3 Argentina can't dismis Vernet for ovius reasons and there is only two parties your elected prime minister in UK on one side and the elected president of Argentina on the other.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0#4 I have a really good life, thanks for caring. there is no victims here but a lot of wrong, for exmple Europid stand on latinAmerican issues are biases. I will get out when you do, about that for deal ?
#5 Malvinas Argentinas is not hong kong, that is why we are waiting for UK elected prime minister to take UN seriously if UK really want pease stability and social order.
#6 you are wrong they can and will be resolved, be patiente, Egypt didn't fall in a day, nor did any empire lasted for ever, I think UN was even created to terminate that.
#7 you tell them.
#8 I agree with 100% on this issue.
#9 they are free to determine on their own to go back to UK or apply for an Argentine residence, That's how is done in Noth America, Canada and other places, I am not too sure about UK.
#10 There is only a two way negotiations here UK in one side and Argentina on the other, if the local population admit to be part of UK they already have a representative.
#11 every pirat eventually falls.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
#12 yea good point about Korea ? they went nuclear do to the threat of occupation.
#13 I don't think Argentina elects UK prime minister maybe that's why you are all here, but we don't, maybe in UK any gipsy and colonist can set up tent and elect a government but the proses is a litte more complicated than tht am affraid, maybe you got here late but Argetina has no claims on fakland island company, I think it was made clear that the claims is for Malvinas Argentina.
#14 the IRA has good training manuals, I think they being dealing with them for a little more then us.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
I(ncoherent) -
Feb 07th, 2011 - 04:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0* the British Government will not negotiate withput the FIG's involvement and indeed, permission - much the same as with the Gibraltar/Spain dispute. The UK Government has clearly stated that the future is very much up to the islanders and their views cannot, and will not, be ignored! The UK Government however seems quite capable of ignoring Argentina's views, as it has since Palmerston's effective reply of 1834.
* the Falkland Islands are indeed not Hong Kong ... well spotted I(diot) ... and as Hong Kong Island was unsupportable with the leased New Territories it was given to China when the New Territories lease expired. A business deal and not one that Argentina can expect with regard to the Falkland islands.
* we already have peace and stability. I'm sure that the islander's lives are hardly touched by Argentine rantings.
* the islanders are indeed free to determine their future ..... without restriction or limitation.
The rest I struggle to answer because its largely incomprehensible. If the article above was submitted as an answer to the Pascoe & Pepper then it has failed badly. An Argentine historian may have done better, not a politician!
I would love to hear a coherent argument and not one based on the childish approach of, 'it's not fair'. I would also love to hear any sort of argument in relations to South georgia and the South sandwich Island. In their case nothing less than a naked attempt at a land grab.
No chance, no hope .... get used to it Argentina!
#15 1982 was long over due, in regards to the rights of the islander ask UK prime minister, I don't know of any country that gives free elections to illegal aliens, I'll check maybe the wall with Mexico is a lie and I live in a fantasy as everyone keeps telling me.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0#17 what message thread you want to boost maybe I can help ??
#18 irrelevant you still getting it wrong, Argentina wan't nothing to do with fakland island company, I think Argentina's claims is for Malvinas Argentina.
#19 no argument there they can do what ever they like in UK they have a prime minister there, Islas Malvinas Argentina is a whole diferent game.
#20 I don't think you can give permition on something that doesn't belong to you.
#21 watching grass grow is more productive then taliking to a british subject, seen one you know them all, they all squeack the same.
#22 you should be happy maybe it's a pilot project to see how we can be conditioned.
#23 pompom I see you are still pulling the cord to see if Malvinas comes closer to UK they are still over 10.000km away, I don't even think they shifted yet.
#24 in Argentina we have toilet paper too, ours don't have maps or pirat treasure schemes, for that we have history books and I checked there was never a country called fakland island only a company, we do have a Malvinas Argentina in the books and there was a governor, Luis Vernet with a doughter named just like “those Argentine islands”.
#26 fig ?? I don't know what fruit you are talking about, the islanders are not being ignored the UK prime minister is representing them,when is UK going to pay for Malvinas Argentina lease or GTFO ? I still don't know what your problem with the fakland island company is, I think i told you UK can take it with them, and yes I will nothing better then those illegal aliens occupying Malvinasto get documented or go back home. I am glad it came from you the land grab comment, UK saying Argentina claims are a land grab is like the pot calling the cattle black.
I(nbred) - I believe that you pretty well covered it in the first paragraph, “ .. I live in a fantasy ...”.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0The FIC evolved and the islanders now have the FIG which rules over land that was GB and is now UK as well as being a part of EU and, given time and the (reluctant) assistance of C-24, will be part of UN. What it has never been is part of BA or RG !
TTFN :-)
This article is short on facts, long on rhetoric, repeating the standard official Argentine propaganda, pure & simple
Feb 07th, 2011 - 07:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly the proper legal forum for Argentina to pursue its tenuous claim is the United Nations International Court of Justice
Pascoe & Pepper use properly referenced historical source evidence in their papers to tell a more complete history than Argentine propaganda admits
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Argentina's claim for the Falklands Islands, South Georgia the Sandwich Islands & British Antartica is much weaker than it care to admit, being mostly founded in propaganda & indoctrination rather than fact
Argentina gave up its claim in 1850 when it ratified the Convention of Settlement
It is hypocritical and misleading to criticise of the British Empire, dissolved for over sixty years, without also criticising the fact Argentina also stole its land from the indigenous population by force & retains those lands today by prescription
The UK has decolonised in accordance with the UN Charter that it help found, Argentina has not. The decolonisation of the Falklands is lawfully subject to UN Resolution 1514(XV) & the Falklanders have an explicit right to make use of their resources, which includes drilling for oil, a fact Cisnero conveniently ignores
Pascoe & Pepper simply highly that Argentina's act of war was the ultimate unilateral action; an action carried out in modern times where competition for land through force is clearly outlawed
Precisely because of the 1982 War, the British have since rejected all Argentine claims to the Falkland Islands, Argentina's forced them to fight a war to remove Argentine occupation
However, Argentina cannot deal with the consequences of its modern crimes
Cisnero is wrongly using it to create bigotry against the modern day Falkland Islanders & British by linking his prejudiced view of all events in UK history to this issue
I guess you are not in tune with UK prime minister, last time I heard he rendered UN irrelevant, and I think we should all agree with him, you can't just pick and choose what's convenient for UK.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 07:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0fig is a fruit I am not buying any.
TWIMC
Feb 07th, 2011 - 07:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mr. Cisneros is a well spoken, diplomatic and pragmatic person.
But even he can’t avoid comenting on Pepper & Pascoe’s hypocrisy.
Trying to “refute” the documented historical fact of 56 persons being expulsed from the Malvinas Islands at gunpoint in 1833 is hypocrisy….. and it shows.
Trying to “make believe” that they were “persuaded to accept” their expulsion is hypocrisy…… and it shows.
Trying to “play” the innocently offended part after four centuries of violent subduing half the planet is hypocrisy…… and it shows.
Trying to “overlook” Britain insertion of the Falklands, as an Overseas Territory, in the European Constitution is hypocrisy…. and it shows.
Trying to “minimize” the paramount fact of claiming to drill all the oil in an area of disputed sovereignty is hypocrisy……. and it shows.
As I said in the beginning; Mr. Cisneros is a well spoken, diplomatic and pragmatic person.
He doesn’t introduce any “new elements” or “revolutionary thoughts” into the “Malvinas Issue”.
There ain’t any……………..
But even he, an instrumental player of the “soft approach” Malvinas policy of the 90’s, is acknowledging the inexorableness of the new Argentinean approach to the issue.
The '56' Think, were the armed garrison sent by BA - trespassers.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 08:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0They were 'persuaded' ..... mostly by the alternative :-)
Hypocrisy rules ... and people in glass houses should not throw stones :-))
Who is 'overlooking' it ... they are a part of the EU - way to go:-)))
We are not drilling in 'diputed' territory ... we have no dispute :-))))
Inexoarble ?? LOL :-))))))))
Think ... the old politician is just singing the company song, nothing new to add and unlikely to win any prizes either at the UN, the ICJ or even the European Song Contest :-]
Didn't see one counter argument to the Pascoe and Pepper article.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 08:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think at 31.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pascoe and Peppers article gives a brief overview of unilateral acts AFTER the 1976 non-binding General Assembly resolution. Argentina's view of what happened in 1833 and your own view of Britain's colonial past is simply not relevant and just another attempt by you and others to steer people off topic.
I liked the holier than thou bit in the article about Argentina having tried those responsible for the war - i seem to recall they were tried for mismanaging the conflict, not starting it.
The Falklanders have the same rights to make use of their own natural resources as Argentines have the right to use their own natural resources
Feb 07th, 2011 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no hypocrisy on behalf of the UK or the Falklanders, it is only on the part of Argentina who refuses to implement resolution 1514(XV) even though it covers the case of the Falkland Islands & Argentina voted for resolution 1514(XV)
Britain including the Falkland Islands as a British Overseas Territory is no more hypocritical than the UK including all its other BOTs in its treaties. It is the UK's international legal right to do so
Argentina has failed to substantiate its rights in International Law in an Internationally recognised court such as the UN International Court of Justice, until Argentina does so its claims remain illegitimate
The accusation of four centuries of aggression against the defunct British Empire, is no different to the four centuries of aggression of the Spanish Empire and the theft of the Southern continent of America by European immigrants from South America's true indigenous peoples
The Argentines have gained the right to their territory by prescription, so have the British for the Falkland Islands for a longer period than most of modern day Argentine territory
Pepper & Pascoe through their publications are demonstrably well spoken, diplomatic and pragmatic people and as historians, also well informed
They properly point out the context of the removal of Argentine forces from the Falkland Islands in 1833 & also point out the large majority of civilian population not associated with the Argentine military forces chose to remain in the Falkland Islands
Pascoe & Pepper are quite clear that the Argentine forces were ordered to leave, after proper formal diplomatic protest by the UK to the AR govt; there is no pretense that AR forces were persuaded by anything other than British local naval superiority including British crew of the ARA ship; AR's protest & own hypocrisy is recorded
What's more ... we can prove it!
Feb 07th, 2011 - 08:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0ICJ anyone ??
“By refusing to discuss the issue Britain is merely protracting an issue that can and will be resolved.”
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Go on then think...astonish me....how is it going to be resolved (and please let's not have a paragraph of RG wishful thinking and whining about 1833 et al, let's hear how it really could be resolved).
But ........ don't mention 'lease-back' :-)
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0if north Korea can why not Argentina ??? Argentina could do everyone a favor, and rid Malvinas Argentina of some pesty illegal aliens.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Malvinas conflict can be resolved some day, the work of British and Argentine negotiators who work out a peaceful agreement, honourable for both sides.”
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Two simple problems here. There is nowhere in the world called Malvinas except as a figment of an Argentine polititians mind.Its the Falkland Islands . As a previous deputy foreign minister ,you should know this. You also overlooked the rights of the Falkland Islanders. As a previous deputy foreign minister ,you should know this !!
“Europeans... 14000 km away...”
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Speak for yourself Spaniard Marcos Alejandro!
for all I see Brits commenters(doubt !) understood nothing on this article.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cisneros refers to ...1859.../...1871... process about on Malvinas....!
@39
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sadly that was pretty much the kind of answer I was expecting. Fool.
No ed, I think it's you who has not understood. Where in the article does Cisneros even mention the years 1859 or 1871?
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Got up to the bit about the British Empire and..................forgotten already.....Forgive me but what a load of Argentinian tosh!
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0not even worth reading-complete bunkum
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Domingo #29 and #35. Good to see some thoughtful and well written posts. I see the rabble addresses not one of them - too difficult. Thanks.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0(46) Ay ay ay….. Cher Isolde…
Feb 07th, 2011 - 12:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're always so melodramatic.... so furious….. so Wagnerian!
A true “Isolde”
A true “Malvina”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvina_Garrigues
Coincidence or kinky sense of humor? :-)
47 Totally agree, Domingo does write some highly intellectual, well written and persuasive posts. In sharp contrast, I might add, to some of the silly nonsense that gets written on here.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps Canada should return Quebec to France (no need for a vote as it was taken by the British forcefully); Spain should get Cuba, Puerto Rico and the Islands in the Pacific back from the USA and gosh how about returning 1/2 of New Guinea from Indonesia to Papu New Guinea... no need for any votes because self-determination and democratic values don't matter except when the voters are on your side... Oh, and while you are at it - Can Boliva have back its only Pacific port from Chile - taken in the 1800s too - by force. Grow up Argentina... you only want these cold islands back because they might have oil and to placate a public bored with continuous poor government... Get over it! Find an issue besides this one to drive your nationalism; the Falkland Islanders DO NOT WANT to be Argentine... they deside...
Feb 07th, 2011 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#50 Don, could Argentina return Patagonia to the indigenous peoples? Perhaps the large part of Paraguay seized during the War of the Triple Alliance? Perhaps the island of Martin Garcia and those other pieces of Uruguay? And perhaps those bits of Tierra del Fuego it bullied out of Chile during the War of the Pacific?
Feb 07th, 2011 - 04:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If we are to properly right every perceived wrong of the past, according to Argentine standards.
But all that will be different, you see you only have to right the wrongs perceived by Argentina. Apparently.
“It is just that when the other side which can only argue force presumes to lecture us on law, seeking to cover up legally what is only based on raw power”
Feb 07th, 2011 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And your Government's attempt in 1982 was to do exactly that - cover up the deficiency in legal basis for a claim and perceived lack of progress by invading and occupying the Islands. Rather more raw power and nastier consequences than at any other time in our Falklands history.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You lost all moral authority in 1982, Cisneros knows that and has admitted it in private in the past (when he was negotiating for di Tella). Ask him what his plans were then !!!!
#53 “Argentines have long offered self-criticism for those errors as well as placing those responsible on trial, something Britain has never done with its countless invasions across the globe”
Feb 07th, 2011 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Kuntz
Remember:
21 JustinKuntz (#)
Jul 20th, 2010
“the decision to release Megrahi was one made by the Scottish Government, which was under the control of the Scottish Nationalist Party. It had nothing to do with the UK Government”
“It was a courageous decision to make on compassionate grounds, to release a very ill man to spend his final days with his family”
And the news today:
“The last Labour government did ”all it could“ to help release the Libyan convicted of the Lockerbie bombing to secure a BP oil deal and strengthen its political ties with Libya, an official review has found.”
“O'Donnell's inquiry has also found that, at an early stage, Scottish government ministers in Edinburgh tried to trade Megrahi for concessions on two controversial policies controlled by the UK”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/07/labour-government-lockerbie-bomber-release
Dont' like the Guardian? no problem, is all over the World news.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/feb/07/labour-government-lockerbie-bomber-release
I told you back them that you were lying about it like you are lying all the time about Malvinas issue.
Yup, and you're still a Spaniard querido Marcos. When are you going back to Spain?
Feb 07th, 2011 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 07 J.A. Roberts (#)
Feb 07th, 2011 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sep 30th, 2010
“And seriously, her lips are starting to sag a bit. She really needs more “work”. Even an idiot like me can see that... ”
You said it, not me.
As regards 1806 and 1807 no need to dig anyone up Buenos Aires was part of the Spanish Empire and at that time the UK was at war with Spain because Spain was an ally of Napoleonic France, but the first raid, the one in 1806 was not authorised by the British government. The commander of the expedition, Home Riggs Popham, left his post in Cape Colony, South Africa, without British permission, to carry out the raid. He was later court martialled for abandoning his post.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos,
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Scotland has a devolved Government, whatever squalid deal Blair, Brown or his cronies tried, it had nothing to do with the Scottish Government, which is independent and controlled by the Scottish National Party who wouldn't piss on the Labour Party if they were on fire.
How dumb do you have to be to fail to understand Holyrood is not and cannot be ruled by Westminster?
But note once again, unable to counter the argument, attack the person.
Much like the article above, long on rhetoric, smears, innuendo, kinda short on facts.
What do Argentina expect to get out of negotiations? They've so far shown no willingness to make any concessions on the matter, and want nothing less than full sovereignty, which is never going to happen without at least the passive acceptance of the islands´ inhabitants.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I strongly dislike the current British government, and the last one for that matter, but I think that they are right in not negotiating about the sovereignty of the territory against the will of the islanders.
If Britain wanted to open negotiations about the sovereignty of Buenos Aires, would Argentina sit round the negotiating table? Of course not, and nor should it. If Argentina still feels wronged by sovereignty being off the table in any negotiations, take it to the ICJ.
However, I am pretty ashamed about the amount of wars that we've been involved in, Iraq in particular. I'm also ashamed of the treatment of the Chagossians, but I don't subscribe to the view that because the British Government sold out and screwed over one group of people, they should do it to another.
Also, I, about the 'illegal aliens' thing, surely if you believe the islands to be Argentine, then the people born there are already Argentine and wouldn't need to apply for Argentine residency
This is a never ending story. What came first the chicken or the egg?.. Once thing is unmistakeable clear: “there are people living in the islands”, any talk regarding sovereignity and who has the rights to what, must be centered around the people living in the islands.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I believe that is not Britain's fault of Argentina's fault. I think it ia a matter to find a common ground among “the three parties” involved. The people living in the islands want to maintain their heritage, Great Britain wants to maintain their world presence and Argentina wants the land back....
May be we can switch the word “want” with “would like”.....I sure they can find a common ground.
Hope this helps!
Cheers from the USA
Why are all this brits supporing illegal aliens in Malvinas Argentina, is the occupation by white illegal aliens better then that of Mexicans or roman gypsys, can anyone see the hypocrisy here ?? I am sure the illegal aliens have their rights in UK with their PM they are free to determine on their own if they want to stay or go back home, Argentina wants nothing to do with your fakland island company we want Islas Malvinas free from illegal occupation, and we will not rest untill that happens, We feel sad that the illegal aliens in the island have no proper representation at the UN do to UK imperialistic obsessions, get out or STFU already, they will always be an illegal aliens, they risk putting their children and the children of their children as a second class citizens, we have a manual of how to treat brits the IRA manual.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0maybe the brits want Argentina to turn into another Iran or N Korea, we all know that this is exacly what they want.
@60 it has nothing to do with the UK wanting to maintain their world pressence it is about the rights of the islanders to self determination,something that the Argentine goverment want to deny them
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@61 what is a roman gypsy?
61 I
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'STFU already'........no, I don't think I will, Mr 'free comment'. You're just far too funny, you should be on the stage. On second thoughts, you're much better off on here embarrassing all your Argentine compatriots and giving the rest of us some innocent entertainment.
Anyway, shouldn't you be in bed already? It must be a school night for you.
Frase there must be a reason why Argentina its claiming sovereignity for more than 178 years dont you think?? As i know nobody its claiming Bs As sovereignity. You are still having a colony here, arg is an independent country since 1810 since los criollos fought for our independence against the spanish people that had to go to their home. Its very clear the situation here.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 10:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@64 Argentina has not been claiming sovereignity for more than 178 years,not sure where you got that from but you have been misinformed
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#57 - Interesting saphira, thanks for that.
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Morning all ... usual Cr*p from MoreCrap I see, couple of new names with the usual lack of RG brains ... ie still relying on the propoganda they learnt in school.
Falkland islands still British? Yes! Wonderful .... so life is at it should be :-)
64 malen
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see this mainly in practical terms. I'm not really interested in the history, because I can't see how it affects the situation now.
If Argentina gained control of the islands, we would fight to gain our independence from you, as your criollos did in 1810. We would never give up. We have nothing in common with you so it seems entirely reasonable to me.
What do you think? I don't see how this could be a desirable situation for any moderate Argentine.
Good morning Rotted, have you been released to Asia, like Megrahi to lybia, under the pretext of compassionate grounds?
Feb 07th, 2011 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#62 “Thousands of Roma Gypsies will head to the UK for a better life”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0(Roma Gypsies are one of Europe's oldest minorities and the Council of Europe, which monitors human rights, says they are the most discriminated against minority in Europe.)
gypsys go to UK while UK come to Malvinas Argentina, what a joke!
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-481070/Thousands-Roma-Gypsies-head-UK-better-life.html
#65 we are now, get used to it, we have a long road trip to share together don't make us get a nuclear defence program, we have enought resources but rather not waste it on it.
#66 Argentina's claims is for Malvinas Argentina, not the fakland company, they are free to do as they wish withing the law that is, Argentine's are not pirats they don't want your company.
#67 you would be considered a terrorits like any other group that fights against their country, imagine what will happen if Mexican start to fight back, in any case If UK wont take you back I heard that there is a jail colony that can come in handy, maybe a rope around your neck or a life time of slave labour would make the rest of you think twice about your words, as I said europids have a way of getting into confrontation for no reason at all. I blame my ansesters for not sedning you all back on the boat the day you got all got off, they say it's never too late when for good things.
The real difference between the British and the Argentineans,
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0the British fought for what we have, and will fight to keep it [legally]
Argentina steals what it cant have, and gets its friends to help her keep it [illegally]
same old crap Argentina wants what it never owned and her bloggers
will never except the bloody truth, the Falklands are British, so despite all your rudeness and illegal rubbish, go and steal someone else’s land, .
69 I
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you mind? I wasn't talking to you. I thought I might have found someone on your side with more than two brain cells, and you pop up again talking utter drivel.
Happy to talk to you if you have something sensible to say, otherwise, *$%* off.
@64 Malen
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0The point I was making was that negotiations shouldn't take place, just because somebody is demanding them. If Britain demanded negotiations regarding the sovereignty of Buenos Aires, it would of course be unreasonable, just like Argentina demanding negotiations about the sovereignty of the Falklands is unreasonable. The Argentine claim came from Vernet's colony around 180 years ago, seeing as he asked British permission to establish the colony, and regularly updated the British about said colony, I would conclude that it is unreasonable to demand complete control over the islands, against the will of the people that live there.
Argentina hasn't been claiming sovereignty for 178, most of that period has been spent in silence, I guess you could call it Acquiescence......
Anyway, calling Argentina's demands 'negotiations' is pretty misleading, considering that they're calling for nothing less than full sovereignty over the islands, hardly a good place to start any negotiations.
Let's say that Britain sits down to 'negotiate' with Argentina....the, what? Do you think that the Argentine diplomats will be so convincing that Britain will immediatelycede the islands?
Let's say that the Argentine diplomats do just that, and convince them to transfer sovereignty against the will of the population. As Monty69 points out, you will have a constant battle with them trying to achieve their independence.
The sooner they are independent the better, but economic blockades and loaded speeches are slowing (I suspect deliberately) down the process. An independant Falklands (which is the only way that it's going to end, even if Argentina somehow gained sovereignty before it happens) would be a disaster for the Argentine claim. Rallying against a powerful (although decreasingly so) country that once had a huge empire is one thing, but against a small, recently independent state of the Americas would look extremely bad and would lose you a lot of support.
Saludos,
Frase
@I(diot)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“you would be considered a terrorits like any other group that fights against their country”
One man's terrorist is the next man's freedom fighter, you'd know about that, being such a fan of IRA tactics. Fool.
57 saphira (#)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0That looks familiar :-)
69 I (#)
“you would be considered a terrorits like any other group that fights against their country”
So, the Rio de la Plata Criollos who fought against Spain were terrorists.
In a feeble and probably unsuccessful attempt to bring the thread back to the article -
Feb 08th, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... two friendly countries both consider themselves sovereign in the same territory and one of them refuses to discuss this issue on the basis of law,...”
Yup, that sounds correct but mainly because when the British tried discussion the Argies tried invasion! Now, if the Argies are really set on a legal solution then ......... ICJ anyone :-)
“ ... No British university, think tank or specialist has ever accepted the democratic exercise of an academic debate with their Argentine counterparts over Malvinas rights. While we’re at it, we could submit this idea to Messrs. Pepper and Pascoe but it is by no means certain that they would accept...”
Seemingly misinformed. The debate was started by Argentina in its presentation at the London School of Economics. Organised by the Argentine Embassy this took place on 3.12.2007 and included - Professor Rudolf
Dolzer, Virginia Gamba Stonehouse, Federico Mirré (Argentine Ambassador to Britain), Raúl Vinuesa.
That was Argentina's opening shot in the debate. Pascoe & Pepper fired a response in their paper 'Getting it right: the real history of the
Falklands/Malvinas - A reply to the Argentine seminar of 3 December 2007
by Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper © 2008
It is a litle disingenuous of Andrés Cisneros to suggest that there has been no discussion or even, without asking them, that Pascoe & Pepper would not fight their corner. The debate was started in 2007 ..... but there has been a deafening silence from Argentina following P&P's response.
It would therefore appear to be Argentina that is not prepared to fight its corner, either before an academic forum or indeed a legal one !!
May be a bit surplus to requirements, but here goes, extract from todays Buenos Aires Herald, you know that famous RG newspaper: “Argentina has recently stepped up pressure on Britain over the Falklands by criticizing British actions as “unilateral” and hence a breach of UN Resolution 31/49. This article places this current phase of the Falklands dispute in perspective and considers which side’s unilateral acts have been more significant. The background is as follows” and then of course to be able to read the article you will need to subscribe. But I thought this was yet another sign by the BA Herald that far from all Argentines think of the Falklands as I***s M******s, which must be said is very encouraging. I guess it is maybe just Mercopress that attracts all the RG loonies. Sleep tight now...
Feb 08th, 2011 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Any BA Herald subscribers out there ??
Feb 08th, 2011 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0I live in Argentina, and most of the vitriolic posters (I'm not talking about all of the Argentina posters) on these boards are not, in my experience, representative of the Argentines that I meet, generally they're very friendly, welcoming people and much more likely to ask about the Beatles or afternoon tea than about the Falklands.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 02:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0A lot of my friends are pretty indifferent to the subject, some say that the islands are better off under the British, I obviously do meet many people who think they belong to Argentine, but the majority do because it's presented as such indisputable fact, that they were taught that and have never really questioned it.
Someone once told me that 'the islands are Argentine, because we feel it in our hearts'. Which is all well and good, but not exactly a strong, objective claim.
be quiet, “I”, or you'll get a good spanking & get sent to bed with no dinner.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 02:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Interesting comment from a British
Feb 08th, 2011 - 05:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Ultra nationalists are those who continue to defend the rights of 3,000 settlers to deny any such compromise solution and by definition the economic piracy of British oil companies exploiting the natural resources of the region as a consequence. It should be noted that the British government attempted to relinquish control of the islands in the late 1960s and that this attempt was thwarted by the islanders refusal to even consider any compromise on sovereignty. The result was a war over a decade later costing the lives of 1000 British and Argentinean military personnel and the ability of Thatcher to utilise the triumphalism which followed to attack the working class at home.”
Comment by John
John who? Bull?
Feb 08th, 2011 - 05:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... this attempt was thwarted by the islanders refusal to even consider any compromise on sovereignty...”
And that is as it should be !
The lease back proposal was not a compromise on sovereignty as it would have meant sovereignty being entirely in Argentina's hands.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 07:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0@80. so what, Marcos? will you compromise on your sovereignty?
Feb 08th, 2011 - 07:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0@74 dab14763 (#)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0:)
#70 Luis Vernet would have a diferent opinion of your lies, but fortunatelly for you he is not here, but I am, what was that about theft little man ?? what an illegal alien thinks in America is as good as their legal status, maybe in UK you have rights in Malvinas Argentina you are a illegal alien, you can take the fakland with you when you go back home.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0#71 yes, go home to UK.
#72 you mean to negotiate with illegal aliens ?? when USA and UK lead the way dealing with illegal aliens the way you want to deal with the illegal aliens in Islas Malvinas Argentina, we might listen, untill then we will have to settle with the status quo, we can't have two sets of rules, one for the europids and the other for natives, what we need is the same rules for everyone.
#74 illegal alien in malvinas are not criollos, there is no comparison there, the illegal aliens are brits and they should go back home to UK and their prime minister.
#75 what you call invation we call liberation, and Argentina didn't invade we liberated Islas Malvinas Argentina, and the illegal aliens can take their fakland island company back to UK if they want, Islas Malvinas Argentina is not Hong Kong, please don't force Argentina to arm itself with nukes like Iran or N Korea we should be doing better things with this resources.
#77 there is better things to do with money, if anything they say was true the subcription would be free and they would make money on promotions and classifieds.
#78 read up governor luis Vernet in wikipedia then read up fakland acounts of the same event, for some reson Luis Vernet was a governor in his biography but a military commander in the fakland biography, maybe all british know Islas Malvinas Argentina history from wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet
Time to consider an honourable settlement.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Seriously consider.
I(diot) - Vernett was Britain's man, he had British permission for his settlement, and kept Britain informed as to what was happening on the islands. After BA's trespassing garrison was 'persuaded to leave' in 1833, it was Vernett's settlement that remained and continued to operate. When Vernett's settlement failed, it was to the British that he came seeking compensation.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just because you 'unilaterally' name someone 'governor' does not make it so.
Why on earth would Vernett have ' a different opinion ...' - and a biography is written by someone other than the subject :-)
@86 Graham (#)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0There was a settelment in 1850 so what do you mean time for an honourable settlement
Actually, maybe that's the way forward ... if Argentina names Mr Nigel Haywood CVO as the 'Argentine Governor of the Mal (whatever)” then they can claim to have won ....... :-)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0“...the rights and the wrongs, the mistakes on both sides, and the exercise could be stretched out ad infinitum in an interminable sequence of arguments which would muddle everything except the core issue”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 09:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pretty much what takes place on each and every forum, 100% of the time. On account of a futile effort to convolute what is in fact a simple issue.
Malvinas belong to Argentina, they always have, they always will.
The Falklands have never belonged to Argentina and never will
Feb 08th, 2011 - 09:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0@90. you are wrong, once again, martino
Feb 08th, 2011 - 10:06 am - Link - Report abuse 078 comment is delightful it makes me cry. You know ive been in london living 6 months, and the people there say malvinas where are they in asia? no in sthamerica, ah they are argentinians obviusly. classic answer there.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0and its the same as if go to liverpool. take away the people living in an appartment. because i allways wanted to live there. now its my appartment. i put bombs alll around so you cant enter. its mine because i sayit and is no discuusion. but you are in liverpool, the owners need it. i dont care i have here an strategical view and an interesting sustaintable future. its mine because i am here i occupy it and its over.
you could have choosen caribbean islands better placed and very strategical but no you are here to bother us. the relations arg uk are not good and well never be with this theme in the middle. i agree with comment 69 .
“i agree with comment 69 .”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0There goes your credibility then.
-completely.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Can't get much more strategic than the Falklands ..... Ascension, St. Helena, Tristan da Cuhna, Falklands, South Georgia, South Sandwich Islands .... stepping stones ... to the Antartic !
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wikileaks-files/london-wikileaks/8305234/UK-REBUFFS-ARGENTINE-CLAIM-TO-SEABED-RIGHTS-AROUND-SOUTH-ATLANTIC-BRITISH-OVERSEAS-TERRITORIES-INCLUDING-FALKLAND-ISLANDS.html
yes we should have fight with you in 1833, but we were entertain in others matters being a new nation. Nowadays its not reasonable.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0you have like a double speech you are always wanting us to probe what you cant probe do you understand? bs as sovereignity we can probe if you want to claim it, implanted population because you dont know our history not even were is bs as in map. you have so advanced medicine to save lives but how many people 1 million has already been killed in afghanistan. you live in democracy have a congress is the people supporting this war? i cant understand it. people with no poverty with instruction good educating sistem but in values you are not better no no
@Malen 95 and 97
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I hear the 'house' analogy a lot, but it doesn't really work, the 'house' was claimed by both Britain and Spain long before Argentina existed, Spain continued claiming it after Argentine independence, and never ceded anything. Britain formally protested when Argentina tried to annex it, and when that was ignored, went to expell the military garrison that Argentina had set up there, on land that the British considered to be theirs.
That was almost 200 years ago, so a failed attempt at annexation almost 200 years ago does not override the will of the people who have lived there since then. So what if you spoke to some English people who didn't know where the Falklands are? (out of interest, when you asked them, did you say Falklands or Malvinas?)
I wasn't seriously suggesting that Britain should claim Bs As (which I have no problem pointing out on a map), I thought that was pretty obvious and I explained my point in a previous post.
Yes, there is poverty in the U.k.
No, most people don't support the wars that we've been involved in in recent times (and even less so, in these times of austerity), but unfortunately we were/are ignored. Supporting the rights of the Islanders, doesn't mean supporting every government policy.
Saludos,
Frase
Great ... we've got malware who lives in Liverpool and thinks he has some idea of what the Falkland Islands is all about .... and thinks we have no idea about Argentina's history... I do wish you Argies would keep the inmates IN the asylum!
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think malen said that she's a girl on another thread
Feb 08th, 2011 - 12:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A female in Liverpool, not the long haired lover from a Liverpool, by jimmy Osmond , well well well, the Falklands are still British, and Liverpool is still Liverpool, and you are still argentine, as for people not knowing where the Falklands are, if you truly are in the uk, and travelled by train esp. the underground, then you would know most people haven’t a clue where they are most of time anyway ???
Feb 08th, 2011 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@I...Illegal Aliens? Are you serious? If we are illegal, your country should just kick us out....? Oh wait, didnt they try that in the 80s...wasnt so successful was it? I you are too much, you are hysterical, and the best thing about you, is that you truly cant see how ridiculous you are! If I am an illegal Alien, I, please come to the Falklands to evict me and the rest of us! You need to start taking some actions and not hiding behind your feeble words.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The reply to Pepper and Pascoe's paper is just a better presented version of the usual Argentine rubbish they spout out. No facts and just completely buried in with the misinformation regarding the events of 1833. No challenge just the usual propaganda with no substance. Also, it conveinently forgets about the third party involved in this matter. The actual people who matter...the Falkland Islanders.
(98) Frase
Feb 08th, 2011 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The base of your (and many others) argumentation seems to be (correct me if I’m wrong):
***”Nothing overrides the “Will” of the people who live in Malvinas”***
Well………That’s your opinion……. And it is erroneous…..
Quite recently, 7.000.000 Hongkongians “Will” was overridden by the British Government.
Nobody asked them a thing.
And remember…. They where not all Chinese… .About 100.000 were British White Anglo Saxon Protestants.
That is the precedent that the British Government has established and that is the precedent we, Argentineans, are following.
It is not the first time I mention the “Hong Kong Issue” in here……. but until now, nobody seems to have had time to give an opinion, to argument or to answer.
Maybe you will?
PS:
Just remember that “Redhoyt” said something about an “Old Deal” between some British King and some Chinese Emperor……..
So…. If an “Old Deal” could override the “Will” of the people who lived in Hong Kong.........
Let’s then make a “New Deal” that overrides the “Will” of the people who live in Malvinas.
this was found.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hong Kong's territory was acquired from three separate treaties: the Treaty of Nanking in 1842, the Treaty of Beijing in 1860, and The Convention for the Extension of Hong Kong Territory in 1898, which gave the United Kingdom the control of Hong Kong Island, Kowloon (area south of Boundary Street), and the New Territories (area north of Boundary Street and south of the Shenzhen River, and outlying islands), respectively. Although Hong Kong Island and Kowloon had been ceded to the United Kingdom in perpetuity, the control on the New Territories was a 99-year lease. The finite nature of the 99-year lease did not hinder Hong Kong's development as the New Territories were combined as a part of Hong Kong. By 1997, it was impractical to separate the three territories and only return the New Territories. In addition, with the scarcity of land and natural resources in Hong Kong Island and Kowloon, In March 1979, the Governor of Hong Kong Murray MacLehose paid his first official visit to the People's Republic of China (PRC), taking the initiative to raise the question of Hong Kong's sovereignty with Deng Xiaoping. Hong Kong would be given special status by the PRC government.
Just as the atmosphere of the talks was becoming cordial, members of the Hong Kong Legislative Council felt impatient at the long-running secrecy over the progress of Sino-British talks on the Hong Kong issue. They held that the people of Hong Kong should have the right to know what was being discussed and to speak at the talks. A motion, tabled by legislator Roger Lobo, and declaring, “This Council deems it essential that any proposals for the future of Hong Kong should be debated in this Council before agreement is reached”, either way agreement was reached , 99 year lease finnished.
the falklands are not on a lease, they are british,
Sorry Think ... we're fresh out of 'deals' :-)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And we are fully into the WILL OF THE PEOPLE when there's no business deal to get in the way .... but hey, I am impressed with your adherence to distraction techniques rather than dealing with the subject matter of the story above ..... impressive how you reflect an Argentines national/natural character :-)
“Let’s then make a “New Deal” that overrides the “Will” of the people who live in Malvinas.”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go ahead and try to make a 'new deal' with the UK then......good luck.
;-)
85 I (#)
Feb 08th, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ illegal alien in malvinas are not criollos, there is no comparison there, the illegal aliens are brits and they should go back home to UK and their prime minister.”
You are right on one thing. There is no comparison. In the Rio de la Plata it was Criollo Spanish and Iberian Spanish fighting for control of land both had stolen from the indigenous peoples. After the Criollos had won they went on to steal even more land from indigenous peoples. In the Falklands it would be Falkland Islanders fighting for control of their own land, which they had stolen from nobody.
Wrong on everything else.
(106) WestisBest
Feb 08th, 2011 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Go ahead and try to make a 'new deal' with the UK then......good luck. ;-)”
I say:
Hiding behind the acerbic irony of English derisive double-talk; “Redhoyt”, a true civil servant, a “System” man and most exquisite representative of “True Englishness” in here, has widely open the gates of negotiations with Argentina and already sold you for despicable Mammon at post No. 105:
”And we are fully into the WILL OF THE PEOPLE when there's no business deal to get in the way” …
Jupppp….. We know “our” English…. :-)
Well we'll just have to wait and see won't we think......I'm not going to lose any sleep over it mind.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think is actually correct here. There were many protests by the people of hongkong because a lot of people wanted to keep the british governance over Chinese.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In reality think, the UK had no choise in the matter and the best we could do was get the people the best deal for there rights as we could and i think the UK did that in many respects as they are governed by people from HK and have a fair degree of autonomy.
The problems with keeping HK were many, cultually they were chinese people. Legally the lease was up, we had agreed to give back HK.
Even if all these hurdles had been overcome it would not have made a difference anyway since the chinese government had already said that if the island city were not turned over eventually it would result in a military action and the island was completely unsustainable and indefensible due to it's location and proximity to mainland china.
“So…. If an “Old Deal” could override the “Will” of the people who lived in Hong Kong.........
Let’s then make a “New Deal” that overrides the “Will” of the people who live in Malvinas.”
There are no similarities between the two think. the islanders are not culturally Argentinian. There was no and never will be any deal like there was in Hong Kong. Argentina never owned the place for hundreds of years. The islands are sustainable and defensible.
Hi Think,
Feb 08th, 2011 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How's life down in Patagonia?
My argument was that a failed attempt at colonization almost 200 years ago (which was allowed to go ahead only with British permission), doesn't override the will of the people who have been living there peacefully since then.
To be honest, I'm not too well versed on Hong Kong, but the situation does seem to be pretty different. The most obvious difference being that Hong Kong was always leased out, and the Falklands were never under any sort of similar lease. Had a similar agreement been in place with Argentina, it may be a suitable, legal precedent, but there wasn't, and it isn't.
I take your point about the will of the people not being held as paramount by the British government in all instances, in an ideal world, the people that live there would have had a say (ditto the Chaggossians), but it's not an ideal world.
I am not speaking on behalf of the British government, and am offering an opinion on how I see it, and what I think is right, I don't think that because other peoples have been sold out, that even more should be too.
Anyway, look on the bright side, now we've got Pinky and Perky running the show, offer them a tidy sum, and the islands will be yours! You can even have a slice of our forests or the NHS if you've got the money!
Regards,
Frase
“Pinky and Perky”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Haha!
Hejsan svejsan…. Mr Frase….
Feb 08th, 2011 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not in Patagonia……In Båstad for a few weeks….Windy, dark and cold…..
About “British” Hong Kong….. Fascinating history…..
Surely a bit troublesome for a modern open minded Briton…….
But no, Hong Kong was not always “leased”…..
Start at the “Opium Wars”… if interested..........
You are correct about the Falklands never been under any sort of lease.
The British never bothered…..
They took them by force and kept them by force since.
You are also correct about this World not being an “Ideal Place”.
That’s the reason why I refuse to accept the self-righteous British argument about the sacrosanct and inalienable self- determination right of 2.500 British Government employees, UK citizens and Squatters to decide over an enormous portion of Argentinean territory including its potentially massive natural resources.
That’s the way the cookie crumbles….
IMHO
Nice to see someone questioning Mr Peppers writing. He's not exactly Mr Objective is he...
Feb 08th, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem today is that the arguing for self determination is so p.ss poor. Plus, the islands have become so insitutionalised with englishness since the war... Now, with the islands identity decimated with a desperation for money and oil etc, which has arguably ruined what separate ness we once had... Nope, its practically gone. Lets just say there should be no more conflict to sort the problem out. Going on the bigotry though that i see on this site its hard to be optimistic of true peace one day. And yes, with Britain seeming to be returning to some sort of 'cuddly imperialism' again - the language different but the end results still the same (see Blair, Invasion of Iraq etc, the Queen visiting the UN - that same organisation that Blair ignored, etc etc ... and banking monopolies and bail outs... And yes, Mr Pinky and Perky... just what is happening with UK voters? Does no one really give a s..t?? No Think, its not an ideal place this world. Its actually quite pathetic, that humans can't sit and talk things through. But there's always hope. Siempre...
the difference between britain and argentina? britain gave up all colonial possessions where the will of the people and/or legal agreements required them to leave. argentina as shown in it's conquest of the desert stole land, exterminated natives and left no one able to claim the land back and thus still occupies them.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we never bothered leasing them because why the hell would we? vernet's private (ie non argentine government affiliated) settlement there was set up with him seeking out and being granted our expressed permission thus acknowledging our ownership, the only two legitimate rivals for the area Spain and France had lost interest, and our own claim was the strongest one still standing. the fact argentina tried to nationalize this private settlement thus give themselves a claim is irrelevant as they failed to do it before britain took direct control, hell if these events played out today britain would still be legally and morally at advantage. i notice you didn't say anything to refute that particular point on frase's comment
and for aforementioned reasons and by your own hypocritical standards on the falkland islanders i refuse to recognize the human rights of ANY European descended argentine (97% of them) as by your logic they are squatters, thieves and murderers, and should be treated as such. the falkland islanders have existed there longer than most argentines, and unlike argentina have existed in perfect peace without attacking their neighbors or committing atrocities on their own population.
its not very nice when your own idiotic logic is used against you is it?
Word......
Feb 08th, 2011 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I like your words.....
Hope they’ll keep flowing.
Siempre..........
Sr. Think,
Feb 08th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll have to read up a bit more on it, I won't just do a 5 minute wikipedia search and come back pretending to be an expert. Zethee mentions that the Chinese threatened military action, which would have been no way winnable, so right or wrong, China would have gotten them back somehow anyway, so the options were give it back when the lease runs out, or go to war and have them taken anyway with potentially a lot of people dead.
Your last paragraph rests on the premise of the Falklands being unequivocally Argentine at some point, and I don’t think that’s the case, they tried to annex the territory knowing that they were being claimed by 2 other countries, and one of them took them back.
Out of interest, in your eyes, would they ever qualify as eligible for independence?
Independence is the only way that I can see it ending up, which would obviously be a disaster for Argentina’s claim, as I said above, this sort of rhetoric might gain support against an ex-colonial power, but against a small, newly independent nation of the Americas, I think support would quickly be lost.
Maybe when it's ready for independence, there could be negotiations, so that Argentina can save face, and the Falklands can be integrated into MERCOSUR or something, I don’t know. Even if Argentina gains total control over the islands, the islands will loudly campaign for independence, and given all the differences, I'm sure they would achieve that end.
@ Word, I agree that the bank bailouts were a disgrace, UK voters had a terrible choice last May, the three main parties are basically the same, you could either vote Tory, Tory or Gordon Brown, it was kind of like that game 'would you rather..?' where you have to choose between 2 of the sickest, most grotesque (well, it's like that when I play it) scenarios, except it was tragically real. My forms didn't even arrive, so I couldn't vote. I read that it happened to a lot of ex-pats, so I can't blame Correo Argentino
Saludos,
Frase
(117) Frase
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ask:
Out of interest, in your eyes, would they (Falkland's) ever qualify as eligible for independence?
In my personal opinion:
It would be possible but it should be a Real Independence, not a Pro-Forma Independence.
The rest of the South Atlantic Islands should be placed under Falkland’s jurisdiction too.
The UK Military would have to withdraw immediately; replaced by UN troops if neccesary.
The Free Market Rules should apply equally for all.
Integration with Mercosur would be more than desirable.
I know for a fact, that Argentina has once put a similar draft-offer on the negotiation table…..
Guess what the answer was?
Do you have a link or any more information about that draft-over? I'm guessing that it would have been before the constitution was amended in 1994.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If real independence is the goal, or at least an acceptable outcome, why have they left the part about the Falklands being unquestionably Argentine territory? And why is Argentina actively making the conditions for independence more and more difficult?
If it really is about the British being in South America, rather than a land grab, why not work with the people of the Falklands to help and encourage them towards full independence and integration(which could be a realistic option, where as a full transfer of sovereignty is not) ?
#94 and #95 #100 we know too well of UK credibility, is the pot calling the cattle black again, didn't I tell you three to stop stalking women and children ?
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
#97 europids have many dubble standards, the writen constitutions protects the interest of europids alone, take Malvinas Argentina has an example, UK claim rights they did not give the original settlers, not only that but when confronted with the rights of the illegal aliens they striped them of any voice claiming Argentina is a bully, but no proves of it, and let the situation get worst for the illegal aliens, I mean nuclear weapons worst. if things keep going this way, I can see another Israel Iran situation building up in the south seas, don't waste your time trying to change them they are conditioned to do as they are told.
#98 Argentina tryed to annex ??? must be the web information block UK has on its subjects, or maybe they never wondered around wikipedia long enought to bump into this inconvenient truth.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
now tell us about the rights of Luis Vernet and see how that could be resolved, aren't the Argentine's of 1833 people or do you only see the illegal aliens squatting rights, I am sure the illegal aliens have all the rights of a british citizen in UK, becoming a citizen in another nation is a choice nobody can force you make, this is why we are all free to make our own choices in our respective nations, the problem is tht there is no nation named fakland nor will there ever be.
#99 you must spend a lot of time wanting to see an Argentine inmate comming thorught that door so you could watch him shower while you do your lousy job, nothing new with europids, why not just come out of the closet and be gay rather then stalking them ???
#101 yes still british and they can go back to UK whenever they wish they are free to go or get their immigration papers in order, I am sure Malvinas Argentina won't turn them down
Great story, bro
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 077 years of state indoctrination answers the question of why Argentines claim the Falkland Islands are theirs, but in 65 years of the UN International Court of Justice, Argentina has never had the courage of its convictions to test its claim in open scrutiny
Feb 08th, 2011 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What Think or Argentina wants is irrelevant, according to its olbigations under resolution 1514(XV), rather it is want the Falkland Islanders want which is important. The Falkland Islanders are already free to determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Indeed, Immediate steps shall be taken to transfer all powers to the peoples of the Falkland Islands without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom
Fundamentally, Argentina cannot intervene in choices and events in the Falkland Islands, it is the choice of the people there.
To its shame, Argentina does act directly against the UN Charter and resolutions 1514(XV) and 2065(XX) by its use of systematic oppressive measures and state sponsored incitement to hatred of the innocent contemporary Falkland Islanders
Think reveals his true bigoted nature, when he derogatory calls Falkland Islanders squatters; As his bigotry ably demonstrates, the sad reality is Argentines will not respect the Falkland Islanders way of life
The actual facts are Argentina has no say in the future of the Falklands, that is and remains the choice of the Falkland Islanders, as the UN general assembly has voted by unaminously with only a handful of abstentions
Argentina simply wishes to make a resources grab for British Territories, which is why Argentina includes other British South Atlantic Territories, no more, no less. It has no claims under sovereignty or territorial integrity for South Georgia, Sandwich Islands or British Antarctic
Shame on Argentina
(119) Frase
Feb 08th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No,…………… I do not have any link, copy or access to any form for documentation about the draft-offer I mentioned before…..
Only my useless knowledge of its existence.
Real Independence for the Falkland’s is not and has never been an Argentinean goal but a kind of “last acceptable solution”….
From the Argentinean, and increasingly South- American point of view, the “Malvinas Issue” is a geopolitical one. We want to have control over the resources of our own area.
And that’s impossible having a Trojan horse in the South Atlantic which only purpose is to be an excuse and a base for the siphoning of the above mentioned resources to the North.
Negotiations or dialogue with the intransigent and vociferous dominant group on the Islands have been impossible since the end of WWII.
Most of the comments you can read in here, at MercoPresss, would be considered too soft and moderate by these people.
You seem to be genuinely interested in this matter so don’t take my word for it.
Do your own research……………………
I would recommend you to look at the 1972-1982 negotiation period and the Islands lobby role.
Or at why Argentina withdrew from the Fishing Agreement (FIG granting 25 years fishing licenses instead of 1 year licenses to their ships without previous consultation)
Or at why Argentina withdrew from the Oil Prospection Agreement (FIG granting exploration licenses to British Companies without previous consultation)
Etc. etc. etc….
83 lsolde
Feb 08th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ @80. so what, Marcos? will you compromise on your sovereignty?”
I don't like to share my pizza!, however I am not afraid to sit down and listen the demands of the hungry English lion(gatito).
105 Rotted
“And we are fully into the WILL OF THE PEOPLE when there's no business deal to get in the way”
What happen with“ self determination”???
,?The rest of the South Atlantic Islands should be placed under Falkland’s jurisdiction too,,,,,,,,
Feb 08th, 2011 - 10:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this cannot be done as the rest are no part of the Falklands and never will be.
the proximity of these islands would guarantee access to Antarctica, the British government made quiet sure that the Falklands would now and always stand alone,
As for UN troops, this would never be allowed, have you see how very hard it is to get UN troops to go anywhere, they really have no interest, most UN roles are taken normally by Africa troops or European countries, most of any problems in the Americas is normally sorted out by troops from the Americas [is it not], and neither would agree, Getting two people to agree on anything is almost imposable, and one further point,,,,,,,,,,,,,
im not quiet sure here, so please correct me, but some time ago an incident arose that had something to do with the USA, about /and concerning south America, and Brazil put its foot down and told the USA that under no circumstances would Nato troops be welcome or wanted in the south Americas, [I remember reading an article on this , but just cant remember what it was about] the whole point im making is that this problem will only ever be solved between all 3 party’s, Argentina, Falklands, Great Britain, no agreement is no deal, 2 into 3 wont go, its all 3 of nothing im afraid
Just my opinion
“From the Argentinean, and increasingly South- American point of view, the 'Malvinas Issue' is a geopolitical one. We want to have control over the resources of our own area
Feb 08th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And that’s impossible having a Trojan horse in the South Atlantic which only purpose is to be an excuse and a base for the siphoning of the above mentioned resources to the North”
It's impossible because Argentina is claiming territories it does not own; however joining up the exclusive economic zones that belong to the various territories Argentina desires to own, it is clear that Argentina seeks to enrich itself by seeking to take territory from other states
Argentina through its belligerent claims outside the rule of the UN International Court of Justice and unilateral acts often deliberately threatens the territorial integrity & political independence of other states in a manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations & often deliberately acts in such a manner that endangers international peace, security and justice, particularly its systematic use of oppressive economic and political persecution
I have no doubt the UK amongst other states also expects to use its territories to reserve its rights to its exclusive economic zones it owns from the founding of the UN
The vast majority of the areas Argentina claims for exclusive exploitation are beyond Argentina's currently internationally recognised exclusive economic zones, as defined by the laws of the sea
For the UN, the correct compromise would for all interested parties to agree to take the issues to the UN ICJ for advice and if sincere, for full settlement and resolution; however rather than receive judgement, many nations prefer to avoid a clear judgement in open scrutiny
One utopian resolution is for all sides to acknowledge the existence of differing and conflicting views regarding the status of these territories & then agree to share joint economic zones on an equal sovereignty basis
Trying friendship not hate
#126 “it is clear that Argentina seeks to enrich itself by seeking to take territory from other states”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where? Are we claiming the Orkneys 14000 km away and in Europe?
I've never seen think's government say in any way shape or form that Argentina's only goal is the remove the british from the south atlantic, the government's goal is to aquire the islands it is a simple goal that you can not twist to suit your current argument.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Unless you can find me some sort of proof that Argentina is willing to drop it's claim if the UK would remove it's presence from the islands you have branded yourself a liar.
“We want to have control over the resources of our own area. ”
If the islanders go independant the resources will still be theres and the drilling would still continue. This is an illogical view.
are the europids still trying to turn every corner of the world into a nuclear armed country ?? this illegal aliens need to go back home to UK and quit pesting in other peoples land.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
”A proclamation naming Luis Vernet as Governor of Islas Malvinas Argentina was issued by the Government in Buenos Aires in 1829
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
I sleep well at night anyone else ?? LOL
ZZZZzzzzZZZZZzzzzzZZZZ
Morning all ... Think still trying to muddy the waters with Hong Kong? No Think, Hong Kong Island was not leased, it was the New Territories that were leased from China, but without them the island was untenable. Unlike the Falkland Islands which rely on no extra (leased) land and are very tenable.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee - there are some author's who talk about Argentina's geopolitical strategy for controlling the south atlantic access to Antartica. Which is why they are attempting to claim South geotgia and the South Sandwich Islands even though there is no historical, geographical or legal basis to such a claim.
A simple land grab with the objective of securing a chunk of Antarica, to which they also have no claim.
The Falkland islands 'situation' was between Spain and Britain and was resolved 'honourably' in 1833. Argentina had no claim then, and has none now.
Muddying the waters Think will get you nowhere! We know what we are dealing with here ....... naked aggression. We recognise it ... we used to use it before we became all PC and nice :-)
The Falklands are British - get used to it !!
”The appointment of Vernet was challenged by the British consul in Buenos Aires, who restated the previous British claim to the Islands. Vernet had sought British permission before landing on the Falkland Islands (in 1826 and again in 1828) and agreed to provide regular reports to the British consulate. In response to the announcement of his appointment as Governor, Vernet stressed to the British that his interests were purely commercial.”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to sleep pretty well throughout the day too......
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/05/one-of-the-us-most-wanted-fugitives-captured-in-buenos-aires
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/05/one-of-the-us-most-wanted-fugitives-captured-in-buenos-aires
europids are always trying to steal, rob or rappe and when confronted they wil run away and hide and lie living in denial, follow this link and seethe kind of people they are, they are all here trashing when they should be there making things right, you are all the same and your writing proves it.
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/05/one-of-the-us-most-wanted-fugitives-captured-in-buenos-aires
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/05/one-of-the-us-most-wanted-fugitives-captured-in-buenos-aires
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/05/one-of-the-us-most-wanted-fugitives-captured-in-buenos-aires
Yes, I agree, crass generalisations are a mark of high intelligence and objectivity. Well pointed out, I.
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@127: “#126 “it is clear that Argentina seeks to enrich itself by seeking to take territory from other states”
Feb 08th, 2011 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where? Are we claiming the Orkneys 14000 km away and in Europe?”
No, but you Argentina is claiming the Orkneys 1400 km away in the Antarctic Ocean, amongst other territories, with no basis in discovery, sovereignty or territorial integrity or prescription
134“The first settlement, Omond House, was built by William S. Bruce during the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition in 1903, but later left to Argentina, and renamed as Orcadas Base. Currently, the only inhabitants live in Orcadas Base.”
Feb 09th, 2011 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 015400 km away from UK
Are you claiming Mars as well?
@think
Feb 09th, 2011 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“In my personal opinion:
It would be possible but it should be a Real Independence, not a Pro-Forma Independence.
The rest of the South Atlantic Islands should be placed under Falkland’s jurisdiction too.
The UK Military would have to withdraw immediately; replaced by UN troops if neccesary.
The Free Market Rules should apply equally for all.
Integration with Mercosur would be more than desirable”
Doesn't sound much like independance to me Think, If we are ever in the position of becoming an independant country then so be it...but sure as hell our independance will not be subject to any Argentine stipulations, if we go down that route you RG's can just mind your own business...and we'll mind ours (you'd better take the eraser to a part of your constitution too :-))
@135:
Feb 09th, 2011 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0134“The first settlement, Omond House, was built by William S. Bruce during the Scottish National Antarctic Expedition in 1903, but later left to Argentina, and renamed as Orcadas Base. Currently, the only inhabitants live in Orcadas Base.”
15400 km away from UK
Are you claiming Mars as well?“
15400km or 1540km, both are outside the 370km exclusive economic zones recognised by the laws of the sea.
Marcos, could you be so kind as to be more precise and clarify whether the British meteorological station was ”left to“ or ”sold to” the Argentine Antarctic Expedition?
Did Britain agree to transfer its sovereignty at the same time to Argentina or not?
How then, can Argentina claim the entire Orkneys based on a simple property purchase of one weather station?
137 “can Argentina claim the entire Orkneys based on a simple property purchase of one weather station?”
Feb 09th, 2011 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0British are claiming Malvinas under the pretext that a bronze plaque was left somewhere in 1774 , when they abandoned the islands.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
Feb 09th, 2011 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
@113 Think, visiting the rellies Cher Think?
Feb 09th, 2011 - 03:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0(140) Cher inquisitive Francosovietic Tropikelperian paradigm
Feb 09th, 2011 - 06:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nope……
Just enjoying the pulsing life of a big Metropolis. :-)
@138: “British are claiming Malvinas under the pretext that a bronze plaque was left somewhere in 1774 , when they abandoned the islands.”
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0No, the British are not claiming the Malvinas under the pretext of a bronze plague, rather it is based on 178 years of peaceful & internationally recognised occupation, settlement of the outstanding differences with the Argentine Republic in 1850 and last but not least, the self-determination rights of the peoples of the Falkland Islands who freely chose to be British
The British bronze plaque of 1774 was a declaration that the Islands were specifically not abandoned & that the British intent was to return due to their settlement of 1765. When Spain left its settlement in 1811 and Argentina attempted its claim, Britain had the right to settle the entire Islands by treaty agreement with Spain, which the UK did successfully and has retained complete & peaceful occupation for over 150 years. The UK also defeated Argentina in its unlawful invasion of the Falkland Islands, further reinforcing the UK's already very strong de facto and de jure sovereignty, which has a stronger basis in international law than Argentina's claims for its military conquests. That is why Argentina should recognise the fact of British sovereignty of its South Atlantic territories; in 2011 under international law British sovereignty of its Overseas Territories is undeniable, imprescriptible and Argentine attempts at the disruption of the UK's territorial integrity is a threat to international peace and security, contrary to the Charter of the UN, which Argentina has also unilaterally broken in the most serious manner through unprovoked warfare on a peaceful neighbor
... and the British have sovereignty over South Georgia and the Sandwich Islands through first discovery in 1775 & peaceful occupation, which Argentina cannot claim
... with no answer on the basis of the Argentine claim for South Georgia, Sandwich & Orkneys no wonder Brits say it is spurious
Thre is a non-binding UN resolution to tralk about soveriginity.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Talk about an honourable settlement is allowable, interesting and maybe, depending on the talking UKists will not do, be desirable as well.
Just what have youseall got against honourable?
@141, nyet soviet, Cher Think, my grandfather was a Doctor from Minsk & lived in France from 1918. he didn't like the communists.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0l have been to communist Russia, nothing worked, was glad to return to the UK. another country(Russia)like Argentina, with so much potential that is not being used. porque?
“British are claiming Malvinas under the pretext that a bronze plaque was left somewhere in 1774 , when they abandoned the islands.”
Feb 09th, 2011 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oh that amuses me Marcos Alejandro (note the SPANISH name), did it not occur to you that the RG claim to the Falklands is because Argentina apparently “inherited” them from Spain - and what did the Spanish leave there when they withdrew from the islands in 1811? A bronze plaque... So your own ridiculous claim is itself based on a bronze plaque! Talk about clutching at straws...
@145J.A.Roberts, oh well spotted, sir.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 10:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0(144) Isolde
Feb 09th, 2011 - 11:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0You ask:
”So much potential that is not being used…. Porque?”
Potential for what, I ask:
To become a “Brave New World” ?…..
Or maybe an “Island” ?
You tell me, ma chère…..
Helmholtz Watson was rocketed to the Falklands after all :-)
But, your indubitably are referring to a Country’s conventional “potential” for sociopolitical and economical development.
Well…..
It is happening in Argentina and it is happening fast…..
You may choose to ignore it and focus on “news” that confirm your preconceptions and clichés.
But that doesn’t change the reality of what it’s happening on this side of the Water.
#136 westisbest - ignore Think ... he wants South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands because he can only sing the company song, even though he does not really understand the tune !
Feb 09th, 2011 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0#138 - never abandoned MoreCrap ... just popped out :-)
Graham - hasn't been a UNSC Resolution since 1982 and as they're the only ones that count that says it all!
#147 - Think, your side of the water is fine, thanks for the recognition :-))
# Wonder where you get your “facts” from Sr T. No such offer was put on the table in recent times. But why don't you ask Sr Cisneros what offer he put on the table in 89/90.....now that is far more interesting.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 11:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0(149) stillakelper
Feb 09th, 2011 - 03:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“ Why don't you ask Sr Cisneros what offer he put on the table in 89/90.....now that is far more interesting.”
I say:
And.......... Why don't you tell usabout it if it is “so interesting” ???
Keeping secrets for Sr. Cisneros ???
Did you “promess” him not to tell ???
What a Turnip.......
The International Court of The Hague protects the Interests of United States and of United Kingdom.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 04:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From 1860, Guatemala claims that that rightfully belongs him: 12 thousand square kilometers of territory of Belize that the former colony pirate snatched to Guatemala besides several islands that the Britons didn't have repairs in stealing.
After years of conflict, meetings and reclamations, the North American Empire has intervened as mediator and he/she will attempt a measure of commitment. The solution is very simple: to leave the decision in hands of a fictitious tribunal.
The fictitious tribunal in question is the International Court of The Hague that taken of its delirium shyster he/she believes to be able to decide on the international conflicts above the dialectical of really existent States. As tribunal it cannot exist without a State able to execute their sentences, it has been appealed to a series of chicaneries. The first one: it will be the North American Empire the mediator. The second: in Guatemala and in Belize it will be carried out sendos plebiscites so that for I countersign popular he/she decides if it is accepted the decision of the international Tribunal voluntarily.
In definitive, measured inmersas in the myth of the «international legality» that leaves to third powers a decision that Guatemala should can to solve for itself. If he/she has not been able to it is because, historically, the microestado of Belize has had more important supports of Empires that use it as platform.
A strong Iberoamérica could make be worth its power in Belize in favor of Guatemala. In the Guayana in favor of Venezuela. In the Malvinas in favor of Argentina. In Gibraltar in favor of Spain, etc. The force arises of the ortogramas union and of objectives. If Iberoamérica hopes to leave its future in hands of comic tribunals «international» he won't have left another that to obey those States that you/they manage those same tri
Anyone get any of that?
Feb 09th, 2011 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i think i got what he was saying, apparently the Hague (thats the international criminal court which rules on genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression and NOT the ICC which deals with sovereignty disputes and the like) cannot be trusted by argentina to bow to their demands because of some minor case in the 19th century where britain refused to cede a colony to Guatemala , so Argentina, Venezuela and Guatemala must force their neighbors to militarily attack the whatever territories these nations illegally claim.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 05:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this despite the Hague having nothing to do with sovereignty disputes, and about fifty other logical and historical fallacies. still running to their neighbors for pity/“support” is a common argentine tactic on this issue when the UN wont listen
Finthorpe
Feb 09th, 2011 - 06:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ICC IS the International Criminal Court. The one that deals with sovereignty is the ICJ, International Court of Justice. Both courts are based in the Hague, though they have nothing to do with each other.
And yes, Raul has posted a load of drivel, and not just because of the bad google translation.
ah yes my mistake , thank you for pointing that out.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islas Malvinas Argentina has zero oil prodcution
Feb 09th, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0fakland company can go to UK whenever they wish.
UN still irrelevant.
UK prime minsiter doesn't care for the illegal aliens in Malvinas Argentina.
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luis_Vernet
I: I sometimes wonder how you even have the ability to use a computer.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. We know theres no oil production, no-one has ever once claimed there is oil production. They are searching for it, not producing it.
2. The “Falkland company” can and will stay where they are.
2. If the UN is irrelevant that gives Argentina even less of a chance at getting what it wants.
3. And yet the islanders are getting and have what they want.
As for the links you should try reading them sometime. It specifically says that he got british permission(twice) to reside on the islands and that his intrests were purely commercial.
Number fail :-(
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0yep zero oil production I, because they are currently exploring for oil. nice job moron. a fail in the first sentence. and i think the oil company is headquartered in London so they are already back in the UK. and i commend you for your honesty, the UN is irrelevant to this discussion, they have zero wish to be relevant because they have REAL problems to solve (the Sudan situation for instance in the UN has been presiding over the creation of a new southern Sudan nation). the UK prime minister also has bigger issues to deal with, but he, like every past UK prime minister has far too much at stake in keeping the islanders safe to abandon them (unlike your nation, we care about our own people).
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0still talking about illegal aliens i am guessing your one of the 97% of argentines descended from the genocidal settlers who slaughtered the natives and stole their lands. i am wondering whether your habit of screaming in hysterical, impotent rage over the falkland islanders due to them being safe, happy and prosperous (despite every underhand measure argentina takes) is due to jealousy over your own nation's poor state despite the crimes committed to create it? must be hard having neither moral, legal, military or political high ground over a small island community off your coast
but by all means continue whining, it is actually quite amusing
#157 i a also good in bed ask your mom son.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islas Malvinas Argentina has zero oil prodcution
fakland company can go to UK whenever they wish.
UN still irrelevant.
UK prime minsiter doesn't care for the illegal aliens in Malvinas Argentina.
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
maybe you should read them as well or is the word “governor” is too much for europids pee brain to grasp, denial can be used both ways.
dab14763 and dab14763
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excuse for the bad translation but they should recognize that I Reign United he/she has many years more than Independent life and History that the República Argentina that is not anything saint, has its adolescent errors. Regrettably in their World History, making a balance (I Reign United), he/she has made many but attitudes and negative cruelties that positive to the humanity and the world peace, and the British islanders load with that stigma. Coarse with alone to remember in the history from it is her about slaves in America and Asia (India) and África (Sudáfrica) and their racism and exploitation, their hidden imperialism even supporting with United States the terrorism of state of Galtieri before 1982 (coarse to observe that the Argentinean destroyers were proveídos for Great bretaña and their military ones taught courses of tortures fruit of their experience in the fight against the ANGER (I Exercise Irish Republican) and at the present time fomenting the inequality, the interventionism and the threat with nuclear bombs to those that don't agree with them. That is the true context of the conflict. Anglo-Saxon imperialism versus legitimate reclamos removed by the force in 1833..
I surrender separated they are the inhabitants of the islands that have a problem of Identity for many: Are they English or Argentinean? We know that Mercopress responds to British Interests (it proves it the fact of they gave of low the version in Castilian) and to a strategy of the very similar United Kingdom to other conflicts with Guatemala (Belize), Venezuela (Guyana), Spain (Gibraltar) and other but…. it Divides and you reigned”….
We seem silly and frank but we are not it………..
I promised him nothing, but you lied to try to look clever.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Poor you.
#159 the UN is a trap that bully's like to use to perpetuate their crimes, UN is breaking up Sudan bacause they are muslims same with Egypt, Palestine, Afghaistan, Iraq and Iran, why do europids protect Saudi Arabia ?? oil but that will change when they oil in gone and they will still be muslims unwanted by the west with no nukes like sudan to defend other nations from braking them up, maybe UK will fall before Saudi Arabia if the Saudi' have any brains that is..
Feb 09th, 2011 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
http://www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
Captivating links! Have you considered posting them on other threads to get the word out?
Feb 09th, 2011 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#164 o yes now I put them anywhere this issues are relevant, and also where I find europids living in denial or perpetuating their murderous life, I promise myself not to rant anymore and to let the links say what I mean.
Feb 09th, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
@163 ah yes, unless of course freaks like you think you can try and twist it's rulings in a futile attempt to give your pathetic argument the appearance of legitimacy, in which case the UN is high arbiter of all that is right. the UN is ensuring an independent southern Sudan because of horrific human rights violations by the north (something your country knows all about if the dirty war and conquest of the desert are anything to go by). and we support Saudi Arabia due to oil resources and their reciprocal support in the region (not particularly moral, but argentina cant talk) when the oil is gone, hopefully their government will come crashing down and they will stop enforcing their unjust laws on their people (something else argentina knows all about)
Feb 09th, 2011 - 09:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and given the UK is 16th out of almost 200 nations in stability/corruption/poverty (and about 10 places ahead of argentina) coupled with the fact that we are the 5th largest economy, 3rd (tied with France) most powerful military, and a global center of commerce, culture and politics means that we are going to be very secure and wealthy for a long, long time, long after argentina has fallen apart or been absorbed by Brazil
and thank you for the links, the first one shows a case of cooperate corruption (wow thats never happened before) which is contrasted with argentina's endemic government corruption, and the other two links which prove (with sources) EVERY British argument on the falklands, their history, and British sovereignty over them
congratulations, you shot yourself in the foot about 5 times in one comment. please keep the good work up :D
“I put them anywhere this issues are relevant”
Feb 09th, 2011 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But they aren't relevant, I.
It's clear that you can't read. Firstly the wiki entry is wrong. But as it stands it does not suit your argument. Let's go through what it says, shall we?
Luis Vernet applies for British governance BEFORE he goes to the islands, twice. He lands on the islands, argentina calls him governor. British consul protests this, Luis then goes to the consul and tell them that he is not infact a governor for Argentina and his intrests are purely commercial.
He then starts commiting piracy(Great irony here for all you argentinians calling us “pirats”), and the US send a ship to sort the place out and quote: “Recognising that Vernet had British permission to be in the islands, the settlement in the Falklands was encouraged to continue.”
How does that wiki help your argument in any way? seriously....You can't be THAT stupid.
Zethee - This sketch explains pretty well why sincere response is futile http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYFQZFL0yoo&feature=related
Feb 09th, 2011 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Haha
Feb 09th, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I(diot) Is Indeed that stupId
Feb 10th, 2011 - 01:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mind you, it's difficult to understand why you islanders are not attracted to life as part of Argentina -
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/02/08/argentina-gets-a-bad-grade-from-heritage-foundation/
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/02/08/argentina-gets-a-bad-grade-from-heritage-foundation/
http://blogs.ft.com/beyond-brics/2011/02/08/argentina-gets-a-bad-grade-from-heritage-foundation/
As for Vernett ..,. there's little doubt that he was playing both sides against the middle, but it suits Argentina's revisionist view of history to use him to add weight to the spurious claim that they had a settlement on the islands before the British reasserted their sovereignty in 1833.
Vernett's all they've got .... useless though he is as evidence of anything. I(diot), like so many of his Ilk, cannot see it !
148 Redhoyt, #138 - “never abandoned ”
Feb 10th, 2011 - 02:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Honest British historians know that they did!
“The Falkland Islands”
“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.
The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there.”
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
Still ignoring the warning on that web site MoreCrap? The one that says that the author has made mistakes!!
Feb 10th, 2011 - 03:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Typically Argentine ... ignoring what doesn't suit your case. Not that a history teacher is likely to carry any weight at the UN, ICJ or, indeed, here!
illegal aliens are the same unrully people everywhere, the illegal occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina must come to an end it's not a matter of if, but when, the shorter you make it the easyer it will be for everyone, you are all prolonging the inevitable.
Feb 10th, 2011 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis-Clifton.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis-Clifton.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lewis-Clifton.jpg
What inevitable??
Feb 10th, 2011 - 06:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The inevitable occurred in 1833 .... and we've prolonged that for 178 .. oops, there I go again! .. 179 years :-)
UN
Feb 10th, 2011 - 09:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whatever, there have been 20 something Falklands/Malvinas unamiuos things from UN since 1982. Comments from Mrs Clinton and Ban Ki Moon (sorry if spelling)_ are both reported on this website as such.
Fear not the fearful
Support an honourable settlement.
@175 Graham, and what, Graham, pray tell would be your terms for an honourable settlement? please enlighten me.
Feb 10th, 2011 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Graham they have acted as neutrally as possible, their statements amounting to telling argentina to stop bothering it and solve it nicely so the UN can get on with REAL problems.
Feb 10th, 2011 - 10:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0there already is an honorable settlement, the islanders live peacefully and happily in their island protected by the UK against argentine aggression and enjoy full legal and moral high ground in the situation, wanting (for so very many reasons) not to become part of argentina and having this wish respected by the UK and the UN by default given their neutrality/disinterest in the situation.
argentina just hasn't caught on yet, and continues impotently agitating it's neighbors to help them force a 19th century situation to be resolved in a 19th century manner (eg argentina forcibly annexing the islands, most likely ethnically cleansing the inhabitants)
168 Frase:
Feb 10th, 2011 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0I believe he proved you right. Even after showing him that his links do not even support his argument he continues to copy paste them.
Quite clearly someone of limited intelligence..and that's being polite about it.
Graham - you are misinformed ... nothing from the UNGA since before 1982 ... more importantly nothing from the UNSC .....
Feb 10th, 2011 - 11:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0The honourable settlement was made in 1833 .... do try and keep up!
173
Feb 10th, 2011 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't think there's currently much interest in making things easy,
especially when Argentina is going out of its way to make things more difficult. At the end of the day we are only reciprocating your Countries awkwardness.
you have more chance of red rum completing a four timer that Britain going under,
Feb 10th, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you still cannot have what you don’t own and never have or never will.
you wish the British military out of the south Atlantic, but it is Argentina that is keeping the British their in the first place,
you cannot depend on the UN , when they agree [you disagree]
the fact remains that Argentina really should concentrate on home problems rather than adding to them, we are trying to solve our own internal problems but keep getting distracted by you.
why not you just let nature take its course ??
Havent you ever seen a latin american soap opera? its kinda like that Bee / Mexican guy off the Simpsons, ridiculous and hilarious at the same time...kinda a good metaphor for Argentina don't you think?
Feb 10th, 2011 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A collony of illegal aliens are hardly considered a honorable anything even if they are europid they must be ducumented, if not go home you can see that no Argenine will (ever) “EVER” like you, by nature we have a rejection of child molesters, murderers, cowards, pirats and illegal aliens, we have nothing against normal law aviding citizens...
Feb 10th, 2011 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
lol , if you want to go down the route of giving web-address examples of crimes, there wouldnt be enough space on the Mercosur website for the range of crimes committed by argentina, and these go way beyond ' priates' and ' murderers ', try genocide, harbouring nazi psychos, starting the falklands war, that kind of thing....:D
Feb 10th, 2011 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt - you kmow exactly what I mean.
Feb 10th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Time to stop this pommie jingoism and talk. It's non-binding after all.
Isolde - As for trems - that requires talking first and deciding - not the other way around as you preach and pray.
Ethnic cleansing has already happened - “there is no such thing as a Falkland Islander” (FIG Attorney General.
Finthorpr - Just take a look at the population history from yhe 1950's onwards and other mass exits prior to that, as Gauchos were expelled to make way for UK sheep farmers and absentee landlords.
Support and honourable Falklands/Malvinas settlement now will you.
Let England be the last colony.
Fear not the fearfull
Time to consider talking about an honourable Falklands/Malvinas. Time to stop trophism and colonial jingoism.
I(diot) - doubt you know any law abiding citizens ... although you may know some law avoIding ones :-)
Feb 10th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Time for bed, child ...... !!
184 Y Draig Goch:
Feb 11th, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0He is intellectually incapable of thinking on his own, so he repeats the same three or four links. even though the links he posts do not even support what he says and thinks about the situation.
I: Again, your links..the ones you repeat... Over and over. Support our claim more than they do yours... They don't even support your current argument... I don't think i've ever met someone as intellectually incapable as you... It's mind mind boggling, lmao.
You've had atleast four people expalin this to you, you've read the wiki...How can you not see this?
Marcos:
You're just the same as this other idiot. Are you the same person? it has been pointed out a billion times that the website you continue to link over and over is not a factual website. It says it on the website.
@185Graham, well you dodged that question, old chap.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0So l'll ask you again. what do YOU define as an “honourable settlement” give me a straight answer, don't try to wriggle out of it.
Please define what YOU want & then define the benefits to us.
Anticipating your prompt and early reply.
re 188 IsOlde
Feb 11th, 2011 - 03:21 am - Link - Report abuse 01. A Malvinas m- FIG free zone
2. A Falklands
Further definition very difficult unless you talk. Stands to reason you come to a conclusion during/after a talking session, but not before.
Not dodging, just not allowed to talk.
As for you, you may have your Falklands and I may have My Malvinas.
There are significant benefits that do need researching, funding and documenting, but can't be because you wont't talk. Your question is unfair, beacuse you are gutless about talking.
Provide the funding and I will give you several honourable outcomes for you not to consider.
Why do we need an 'honourable outcome' in the first place?
Feb 11th, 2011 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0The argument was between Britain and Spain. Spain has abandoned its claim by not objecting in 1833.
The Falkland islands are therefore nothing to do with Argentina!
The current 'outcome' is just fine :-)
I think this links are lot more relevant to the subject then the BS I see people posting.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 06:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
I(diot) - you don't think ... that's the trouble!
Feb 11th, 2011 - 08:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0.... and your links don't seem very relevant at all.
Now if you want to see some relevant links -
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Civil&Political/intlcivpol3.html
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Civil&Political/intlcivpol3.html
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Civil&Political/intlcivpol3.html
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Civil&Political/intlcivpol3.html
http://www.hrcr.org/docs/Civil&Political/intlcivpol3.html
Those should keep you busy for a while :-)
re190 and other expats. (Good people)
Feb 11th, 2011 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 01. The claim is now - here and now, present tense.
No one can prove a closed historical argument, so the resolution (that redhoty does not even know about) is as it is. I figure even the EU courts will simple agree with the conclusions of the UN. “Talk”
2. It turns a threat into an opportunity.
so who the F is “they”
3. I want my Malvinas.
so who the F is “us”, Che.
4' Other articles on this site have detalied what might be iimagined to be in a normailsed Malvinas/Falklands enviornment, as have some FIG councillors. I have my own ideas.
5. It is not just you - sellf centered and others. It is not just about other peoples treasure and blood you are prepared to spend by refusing to consider a hemispheric future that is more than just you, but about“ my” Malvinas as well. (non-binding talkie only - wet)
6. Talking - is to a weak non-binding resolution, nevertheless passed 20 to nil years in a row. Why, haven't the poms bribed them with enough aid?
7. Look for an upside.
Support serious consideration of a new honourable Falklands/Malvinas settlement.
8. Got to stop.
I can feel a Scottish acccnt coming on.
@189Graham. you do not make any sense, then, like most Argentines, you get abusive. who is gutless? us? standing up to a big bully who wants to colonise us & use OUR lslands as a base to exploit Antarctica.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina wants full sovereignty of the Falklands and will settle for nothing less.(its even in your constitution!) some of you even want to ethnically cleanse our lslands & “implant”an Argentine population. you failed miserably militarily & now you have the damned cheek to think that we will just roll over and hand OUR homes to you.
“honourable”- you bozos wouldn't know the meaning of the word.
we are in a position of strength, you are the ones who want what we have got. so exactly WHAT would you trade(give us)for sovereignty of OUR(NOT yours)lslands? Personally l would accept nothing less than shared sovereignty of ALL of Patagonia(that is 50% of all profits & investments & a say in the running of the place).as l can't see that happening, then personally there is NOTHING to talk about.
so come on Graham, WHAT exactly would you offer us in exchange for sovereignty over OUR lslands(that you lust after so much)?
The site is supposed to be in English ... I can only assume you've attempted to use some translation software and the result is gibberish ( galimatías, tonterías, memeces ) ...... or maybe scottish :-))
Feb 11th, 2011 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0The EU (European Union?) Courts are not relevant, the UN Court, ie the ICJ maybe ... are you suggesting that Argetina's case should be tested by the ICJ? Now I could agree with that :-)
@195Redhoyt, when the ICJ ruling went against them, they wouldn't accept it anyway.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 09:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0re 195 you need ESOL lessons. Then consider points above.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 09:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0re 194 No - you have the cheek. Kick the smug lady. Tou are an implant who ethnically cleansed as well, even now.
see my point 2
@Graham
Feb 11th, 2011 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Time to stop this pommie jingoism and talk. ”
“haven't the poms bribed them with enough aid?”
“I can feel a Scottish acccnt coming on”
More an Autralian accent I reckon mate.
I cannot consider points that you haven't made coherently .... honestly I have no idea what you are talking about! And I speak English .... well Birmingham which is close!
Feb 11th, 2011 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde - of course they wouldn't accept the judgement, it's one of the reasons that they won't go!
@Graham 185 the Gauchos were never expelled, and why would the English landlords want to? they were prized for their skills and expelling them would be beyond pointless. im guessing you either just made that up or heard it from some argentine trying deal with the debunking of their “1833 expulsion” myth. from the looks of it they interbred with the islanders and were long gone by 1950.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0and like i said before, there is an honorable settlement the inhabitants are fine with, argentina is the only party acting dishonorably. there is nothing jingoistic about defending a small island community from a hostile and treacherous nation which ahas proved it's contempt for the islanders many times over
now why don't you start listening to what the islanders want, rather than those who want to subjugate them?
200 -Sheep farming, bless its woolly outcomes, has a very similar history everywhere. Including rounding people up and disposing of them to make way for sheep and fences. Anyway, never mind. Its history and it is documented.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A for the residents you overstate the threat with bigoted rhetoric and refuse to allow an opportunity to those same islanders through talking about the points made above, whether they come to anything or not
What about my rights. The UK Governmet says “wishes”. To wish is to talk to find out what could be. I do not want to be your trophy.
Be careful of your jingoism, the islanders are all gone. They are now displaced europrean dependents. Even the constitution only recognises residents (mostly post 82 selected immigrants and migrant workers) .
199 - I am out of this till the next excellent article.
Wher the F is Birmingham - close to Stanley is it?
“ ... What about my rights ...”
Feb 11th, 2011 - 12:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0????????? What rights???
“ ... Wher the F is Birmingham - close to Stanley is it? ...”
Close enough :-)
“refuse to allow an opportunity to those same islanders through talking about the points made above”
Feb 11th, 2011 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hardly, the UK has said that there will be no talks UNTILL THE ISLANDERS WANT IT. We are hardly not allowing them to do what they want as a people. They also have a right to hold a referendum and become independant if they should wish it. They are allowed to choose there own path, and they choose not to be with you.
“What about my rights.”
What about them? Which right exactly are you accusing the UK of taking away from you exactly?
There are only two rights here that are applicable to the situation, Self Determination and territorial integrity. Self Determination you have, you vote for your government or have the choise to do so. As for territorial integrity you might note that a nations sovereignty over their territorial sea only extends 12 miles. Far shorter than the 250 miles the islands are from your nation.
Even if you strech this claim out to your EEZ the islands are far further out than the 200-nautical mile exclusive economic zone(EEZ) that the UN convention of the sea allows.
Are you now saying that you believe that you have more rights over land you do not live on than the people that currently live there and have been for coming on 200 years? That sounds an awful lot like imperialism to me. But that can't be right, because Argentina is against such a concept...no?
@201 sheep farming is irrelevant, you can call up as many examples from around the world, the gauchos were NEVER expelled, nor were any argentines, if its documented then link me the documents, hell they intermingled with the other islanders so well that they left a visible imprint on the language. and by 1950 any gaucho was long dead, their descendants now among the islanders.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ah yes, its not like argentina has a history of attacking, threatening, blackmailing or attempting to blockade them... oh wait. and it is so bigoted to point out that argentina, as a country founded on land stolen from murdered natives, has zero moral or legal right to subjugate the islanders. the islanders have made their wishes clear, they want to remain part of britain and not subjugated to argentina as the land belongs to the islanders not argentina, the British government couldn't refuse their wishes even if they wanted to. the islanders have done plenty to extend the hand of peace to argentina, only to be rewarded with treachery and contempt.
if you are an argentine you have no rights over the falklands, not moral, not legal. the islanders have made their wishes for a peaceful friendship known, but you have responded by trying to deny their existence (as you have just done) and their basic human rights.
there are over 3000 islanders, unlike argentina their ancestors never had to commit mass murder on natives to gain the land, they have far more legal and moral right to live in the falklands than you or the 97% of white argentines have to live in argentina.
Well Graham, I don't usually bother with bigots and dimwits, but my family has been here for 8 generations and has a gaucho side. So what do you make of that ?
Feb 11th, 2011 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hooray, bad day for Rockhopper!
Feb 11th, 2011 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Graham, there are plenty of islanders on here, but I doubt very much you would want to listen to us either. Especially since you think we have 'all gone'.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Er, no, still here......Mr M still here as well.......a few little Ms of various kinds....good good:-)
TWIMC
Feb 11th, 2011 - 05:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rockhopper just announced:
NO OIL in any commercial quantity (just stains and stuff :-)
Shares down 20%
Well……………………………………
First part of my prediction of the 23 January 2011 has come true…..
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/21/unilateral-facts
“175 Think
My prediction, (for what it is worth)…….
The current Rockhopper drill will be a duster. They have already built in the excuse by stating it to be: “Out of their self-proclaimed discovery zone”.
Next Rockhopper drill; “the appraisal” will be a long story with all the ingredients of a Brazilian Soap Opera: Sidetracks, Weather, technical difficulties………you name it.
They will finally downgrade Sea Lion to something between 100-150 Million barrels to keep interest alive for the rest of the campaign without risking jail sentences.”
Let’s keep our finger crossed for the fulfillment of the second part :-)
Even if there's no oil. Won't change a thing. Islands will still be british.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) you are a troll, Graham,& an uninteresting one at that. you still have not answered my questions because you cannot.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 06:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 02) and as for you, senor Think, you are a very strange man. l don't care if there is oil or not, some do, some don't.....but you seem to get some obscene glee from no oil so far. that changes nothing, we are still here & will be still here(or our decendants will)long after you have gone, oil or no oil. you could use your boundless anti-Falkland energy to develope your own country(before you say it,this does NOT include the Falklands) instead of wasting it on a cause that you will never realise.
put your own house in order, man, before sticking your nose into someone elses dining room.
you said that you hate militarism. but the only military we have is to protect us from you--senor Think, him he talk talk plenty humbug. him he no goodpela man tru.
http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article244691.ece
Feb 11th, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''Falklands well 'shows promise'
A well drilled by Rockhopper Exploration off the Falkland Islands struck a good quality reservoir that bodes well for further development in the area, the UK explorer said.''
Just in case anyone's interested. Can't say I'm giving it too much thought but this type of thing does seem to get some people excited.
Redhoyt, “ ....FALKLANDS oil explorer ROCKHOPPER was on the move yesterday amid talk of a second discovery in the South Atlantic. Shares climbed..“
Feb 11th, 2011 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Exiting .... isn't it ? “
Yes Hoyt! -18% just today!
11 February 2011
”A number of live oil samples were recovered from Sand 3 using a standard MDT tool and were approximately 20% live oil and appear to be medium gravity.
It's at this point that things seem to have become confusing:
A mini Drill Stem Test on Sand 3 was performed and only produced water into the well, so further technical work is required to understand why this happened when the standard MDT recovered 20% live oil from the same sand interval.“
”Falkland Island Water Bonanza”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CK092DFzNYE
Macros it doesn't matter if it's oil or water they find. Either way it will be there oil or water :)
Feb 11th, 2011 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0all illegal aliens are entitled to their opinion, they should also let their concerns be known to their leaders who represent them and be free to share them with anyone willing to listen like the UN maybe ? thanks you for sharing.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0180 years of illegal occupation and all they got is lewis clifton, zero oil production, a Malvinas self inflicted yearly defence budget to the the tune of U$657 million which came from the UK subject in 2004 alone.
if you all did the math, you would find on your own tthe cost for the last 10 years, you can see that if it wasn't for the fishing in Malvinas, UK would be over 6 billions in the hole in one decade, if you consider UK claim to be there for 18 you end up with a figure that makes the current oil projections worth a substantial loss, now simply add the years needed to full production wich in some cases can take another few decades, plus the overhead cost that goes into produsing oil in war zones like Sudan or Iraq, with this imposible task britain might be better off following Argentina's footsteps in the bio-fuel indstry wich will hinder oil prices but will make everyone less dependent on focil fuels and nuclear deffence programs.
http://wapedia.mobi/en/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
How's that water exploration going Zethee :-)))))
Feb 11th, 2011 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://iball.iii.co.uk/2008/04/08/desire-petroleum-plc
“U$657 million which came from the UK subject in 2004 alone.”
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Incorrect. The cost for the islands for 2004 alone was 113 million.
“you would find on your own tthe cost for the last 10 years, you can see that if it wasn't for the fishing in Malvinas, UK would be over 6 billions in the hole in one decade, if you consider UK claim to be there for 18”
If you did the maths with the correct numbers. From the offical source you would find that yet again, you are an idiot. Adding all the yearly expenditure from(and including the war itself) the UK has spent 5 billion 80 million UK pounds on the defence of the islands since 1982 almost 30 years ago.
I've just done the maths but you are welcome to do it for yourself. The figures are on the UK parliment website under in publications and records. I'd be amazed if you could even find report for yourself, letalone add it all up and get the correct number.
And again with the links that don't support you. Truly you are a stupid person.
215 Marcos Alejandro:
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You have me confused with somone who cared if they find oil or not. While it would be nice if they do find oil for the islanders. In the end i support the islanders and it will make no difference in our stance or opinion on the matter.
Nore will it change the fact that the islands are british, and will be british untill the islanders decide they wish for independance.
Mind you I dont think argentina would complain if the British spent
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 05 billion 80 million on them would they,
So, they're only there for the resources and the revenues from those resources, but the costs of keeping the islands mean that they're making a substantial loss?
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That is quite an ironic thing about the Argentinian point of view. They claim that they are only there for the resources, while simultaneously claiming that we are loosing SO much money defending them and that there aren't even any resources there to be had.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#216your sources are wrong here is my sources look under #7
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://wapedia.mobi/en/Military_of_the_Falkland_Islands
and here is the rest of the things you need to know soo you don't go bumping into walls, Argentina agrees that fakland company is not Argentina and that they have full right to ask UK for their legal rights back from them, Our claim has always being for Malvinas Argentina, and we respect the rights of the illegal aliens to choose between their homeland or Argentina, why do europids make things soo clomplicated????
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
http://wapedia.mob
www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3388670&c=AME&s=SEA
#216your sources are wrong here is my sources look under #7
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL. Your source is a wikilink with no backing refrence giving it credit. I got my figures directly from the UK Parliment website. You are wrong.
Just to let you know, I. When a wiki entry says [citation needed]. It means that it is an unsourced claim. There is no evidence to back it up.
Feb 11th, 2011 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(219) Frase
Feb 12th, 2011 - 12:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are quite “sharp”, “discerning” and “shrewd” when analyzing Argentina’s true motivations, purposes and goals about Malvinas.
You don’t even seem to have a minimal amount of uncertainty about how Argentina’s Government would react in an hypothetical case created by you.
But…….When it comes to assess the British purposes and goals for their occupation of Malvinas……………………
All that sharpness and discerning shrewdness seem to evaporate……….
What are you trying to tell me?
That Britain is just a sweet “do-gooder” sailing the Seven Seas, protecting the human rights of some innocent and sweet Scottish settlers that just chose to live peacefully in some Islands 15.000 km from home?
Oh, and the figures. I remember think was very intrested in this topic at one point, claiming also that the islands cost us 600 million a year.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islands
Bob Russell: To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will estimate the total expenditure under the defence budget of the military presence in the Falkland Islands since 1982; and what estimate he has made of such expenditure in (a) 2009-10 and (b) 2010-11. [317591]
Bill Rammell: The costs from 1982-83 to 2008-09 (outturn figures) for the Falkland Island are as follows, In millions:
1982-83
780
1983-84
637 (391)
1984-85
644 (403)
1985-86
572 (396)
1986-87
402 (236)
1987-88
229 (118)
1988-89
102 (59)
1989-90
68 (60)
1990-91
66
1991-92
72
1992-93
58
1993-94
67
1994-95
66
1995-96
70
1996-97
81
1997-98
76
1998-99
72
1999-2000
71
2000-01
143
2001-02
115
2002-03
120
2003-04
111
2004-05
113
2005-06
143
2006-07
65
2007-08
67
2008-09
70
The higher figures are the start of the list were because of building the new bases and equiping them. The numbers do not include wages and maintenance.
Anyone here who uses the falkland wiki can update it if they like, with a citation:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100222/text/100222w0006.htm
“15.000 km from home?”
They were born and raised on those islands. It is there home, just as much as Argentina is your home.
Unless i am incorrect and the whole of Argentina should go “home” to spain.
Yup, that's us ... sweet do-gooders these days :-)
Feb 12th, 2011 - 12:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, MoreCrap the oil thing IS exciting ... the more so as I don't have any cash invested!!
Morning all .. Falkland islands still British? Of course they are .... what else would they be? So all's well ............ :-))))
224 -
Feb 12th, 2011 - 12:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you think I was taking his Maths as gospel? Is that not a pretty glaring logical fallacy?
If they were making such astronomical losses by maintaining the islands and wouldn't break even, even with the revenue through oil, especially now with Rod Hull and Emu in charge, then they'd probably be repeatedly calling on Argentina to sit down and negotiate sovereignty........
no oil!!!
Feb 12th, 2011 - 12:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0silly question.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 01:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0would the uk, in any way shape or form have more of a claim to Argentina,
than Argentina has to the Falklands. Remembering British citizens’ have been living in Argentina for decades and decades . Against any argentines living in the Falklands .
just a thought ???
I'm always amused that the Argies think that the oil issue is in some way tied to sovereignty and that if there's no oil we may be more willing to go to the negotiating table. So, once again for the record, the islands will remain British as long as the islanders wish and the discovery, or not, of oil will not affect that position one jot.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0But of course, if there's no oil, then Argentina will not be able to accuse us of 'stealing' it !! They'll have to find something else to whinge about ...... I have no doubt that they will.
Hoyt, if there is no oil we will accuse you of theft attempt!
Feb 12th, 2011 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0I am sure Beef is selling his Jaguar(piece of junk) by now.
See ... MoreCrap proves ....... always finding something to whinge about .....must be the latin blood or something :-))
Feb 12th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0I really do hope that the British Government stick by the islanders, even in the event of no oil being found. It is a concern to my mind, that in spite of all the cuts already made, the economy still shrank by 0.5% in the last quarter, admittedly, the effect of the cuts won't truly be seen until we see how the economy has faired in this quarter, but it must surely indicate that more cuts will come. It's not like the government have cared too much about making unpopular decisions (which it most certainly would be) to save a few quid.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'll probably get gloated at/lambasted for t
No oil!!!!!
Feb 12th, 2011 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Worry not Frase ... the British Government has openly committed itself to the Falkland islanders and rather more than was politically necessary.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your future seems quite safe.
Type it again with a few more exclamation marks, just to make sure that people read your post
Feb 12th, 2011 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt, I should point out that I'm not from the Falklands, but I really do hope that you're right
Feb 12th, 2011 - 02:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0No oil.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0!!
Feb 12th, 2011 - 05:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0235 Redhoyt “Worry not Frase ... the British Government has openly committed itself to the Falkland islanders”
Feb 12th, 2011 - 06:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyt, The British Goverment is so desperate for cash that not even the English forest is safe and plans to sell it.
Very soon not only they will consider the return of Malvinas to Argentina but also they will ask us to transport their troops there back to UK.
Dream on Crap!
Feb 12th, 2011 - 06:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Frase:
Feb 12th, 2011 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 70 odd million a year is costs us is nothing really. And it wouldn't “save” us any money anyway. The defence budget is capped at a % of gdp.
It's usually 2.5%. Because of the cuts it was lowered to just over 2.1%. If we did not have the islands. The 70 million would just be spent elsewhere.
Plus that fact that it would be complete political suicide for any PM to open talks. If cameron was to open talks it would absolutely be followed by a motion of no-confidence in the house of commons.
Marcos: You don't have a navy capable of moving troops across the world. Would be pointless asking Argentina.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0You barely have a navy capable of leaving port.
her boats are nailed to the floor.
Feb 12th, 2011 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0theres a big spread on the argentine navy website about loads of promotions, not one of the new commanders look happy!
Feb 13th, 2011 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0no new blog today, does not mercopress work on sundays,
Feb 13th, 2011 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 08 Think (#) We have nothing to discuss. The Falklands are ours, we let you get your grubby little fingers on it once by letting our guard down, be sure in your mind that will never happen again.
Feb 14th, 2011 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The trouble with you Argentinians you believe all the rot that every successive Government tells your schools to tell you. You invent history to help with your belief . Well this little British Pirate is proud to have helped kick you bunch of no hope thieves of that little bit of British land and only my age will stop me doing it again if any of your Latin comrades step foot on it again unless you are invited to come over for your holidays. And that's the only way you will set foot on it again.
Now go away and wallow in your self pity in the knowledge that a far superior race of people than your countrymen will always come out on top.
Argentina was then the land that time forgot,
Feb 14th, 2011 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so much so, that today even they forget just what they own or think they own .and then try to sell it to themselves .
The greatest thing about Argentines is that they will “NEVER” forget Malvinas Argentina and will never accept british illegal occupation of Malvinas, and even better is watching brits make poems and songs about Argentina.
Feb 15th, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3388670&c=AME&s=SEA
well better poems than a lost cause.
Feb 15th, 2011 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as forgetting the british falklands, this lost island of malvnas will almost certainly be your own undoing .
I hear fakland island company is still open and welcome to go back to UK whenever they want, I am sure Argentina doesn't want anything to do with your brtish firms, just go back to UK and leave Malvinas Argentina alone, don't try to blame on Argentine's what pirats have brought on to themselves for being murderous thives, the tourists from UK have the same mentality they think they can go anywheer they want and we should start sending them back home, before they forget where they came from.
Feb 15th, 2011 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
www.fsa.gov.uk/pubs/final/darwin_clifton.pdf
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OBE
www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=3388670&c=AME&s=SEA
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!