MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands/Malvinas controversy: “Minds closed, indeed”
The following article from Mr. Andres Cisneros is a reply to “Unilateral Facts II” (MP Feb. 12th) by Dr. Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper. The first piece of this enriching exchange (Unilateral Facts) from Dr. Pascoe and Mr. Pepper was published in the BA Herald January 21st and a first reply from Mr. Cisneros (Unilateral Facts, indeed), Feb 6th in MP. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesA very poor and disappointing response.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0only two details from British History ;
Feb 19th, 2011 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 01-)
1828 ... Argentine settlements colony founded in Malvinas Islands..
1831 ...US Warship destroy the islands..
1832 ...Argentina sends new Governor who killed in mutiny which
organized by British Navy Secret Services..
1833 ...British Forces return and grabbed the Malvinas Islands...
******
2-)
1882 ... Egypt invaded by British..
1914 ... British declared Egypt Sultanate..
1922 ... British Puppet Regime..independence of Egypt..
1952 ... Nasser coup..
1953 ... declaration of Republic..British withdrawal from Suez Canal
1954 ... Nasser president ...British withdrawals completely...
“while the Spanish and Argentines held them for 57 or 60 if we add the three years of France, who recognized our legitimate rights”
Feb 19th, 2011 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Eh???! Spain is not Argentina. France is not Argentina. 57 - 60 years. What a ludicrous statement to make.
France sold their settlement to Spain on threat of war, but what France did is irrelevant as Britain didn't recognise French sovereignty any more than it ever recognised Spanish sovereignty.
His statements regards 1806 and 1807 are also laughable. At the time Argentina did not exist, it was a colony of Spain, and ally of France, which at the time was lead by a tyrant bent on domination of the continent of Europe. Has he never heard of Napoleon?! Attacking Spanish holdings in the Americas in 1806 and 1807 was a valid act of war... we were at war with Spain.
It is truly staggering to read logic applied with such infantile abandon.
“they tried to invade us twice before 1833 and failed both times — in 1806 and 1807 (episodes practically absent from any British historiography apart from a fleeting mention in the British Army Museum in London'
Feb 19th, 2011 - 05:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Britain's 'forgotten' invasion of Argentina”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/4779479.stm
Cisneros, my dear fellow, you are no camp man, there were no cattle in Patagonia 300 miles away. The feral “Criollo” cattle were no doubt introduced by the Spaniards from the Argentine Pampas or the Banda Oriental (today Uruguay). I have paintings done by William Pownall Dale, circa 1852, showing the gauchos lassoing and slaughtering the cattle for their hides. William's father, John Pownall Dale (my 3x great grandfather) was the first manager of the Falkland Islands Company. William is buried in the British Cemetery in Chacarita (Buenos Aires).
Feb 19th, 2011 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Cisneros is not exactly doing himself any favours.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, anything pre 1945 when Argentina signed and ratified the United Nations Charter is interesting, even debatable but ultimately irrelevant.
Self determination is the only principle which applies to the Falkland Islanders. They choose. Nobody else.
Oh and Marcos, I always knew you would admit to being a Spaniard. 1806 and 1807 was pre Argentine independence, so “us” can only refer to the Spanish...
J.A. Roberts, “We banned slavery BEFORE you did”
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“With the abolition of the slave trade in 1807 and the emancipation of all slaves throughout the British Empire in 1833, Britain washed its hands of slavery. Not so, according to Marika Sherwood, who sets the record straight in this provocative new book. In fact, Sherwood demonstrates Britain continued to contribute to and profit from the slave trade well after 1807, even into the twentieth century. Drawing on unpublished sources in areas of British history which have been previously overlooked, she describes how slavery remained very much a part of British commerce and empire, especially in the use of slave labour in Britain's African colonies. She also examines some of the causes and repercussions of continued British involvement in slavery and describes many of the shady characters, as well as the heroes, connected with the trade ' at all levels of society. After Abolition contains important revelations about a darker side of British history which will provoke real questions about Britain's perceptions of its past”
http://books.google.com/books?id=3HraAAAAMAAJ&dq=britain+and+slavery&hl=en&ei=JvpfTc_3FIHQsAOHl7jPCA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=4&ved=0CDQQ6AEwAw
You don't exactly have the moral high ground, so best not to lecture others.
British: The masters of hypocrisy.
Couple of obvious errors spring to mind.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The invasion of 1806 wasn't authorised, it was in fact the initiative of the commander. And lets put both into context, they were conducted in the context of the Anglo-Spanish war that was ongoing at the time.
He is still claiming the settlement was expelled on the one hand (they weren't) but with some appalling twist of logic turns that into their “reduction into hunting the wild cattle” so they err... stayed and then claiming they decided to leave, when the eye witness narratives of Fitzroy, Darwin and Helsby demonstrate the contrary.
If he'd wanted to know the origin of the feral cattle on the islands, this is well known. They originated from the cattle released by the French settlers in 1767. Vernet didn't introduce any, point of fact Vernet's settlement was established in part to exploit the existing herds of feral cattle. If you want to read how they got there, check Darwin online or
Bougainville, Louis Antoine de, Count. 1772. A voyage round the world : performed by order of His Most Christian Majesty, in the years 1766, 1767, 1768, and 1769 by Lewis de Bougainville, colonel of foot, and commodore of the expedition, in the frigate La Boudeuse, and the store-ship L'Etoile; translated from the French by John Reinhold Forster. London: Printed for J. Nourse and T. Davies.
You can download a copy from Google books. The cattle didn't come from the mainland. There were also feral pigs and goats from the practise of passing sailors leaving animals to be harvested later. Again this is well known.
The claim to have occupied the islands since 1820 is bogus, Vernet didn't establish a settlement till 1828 - and as Pepper notes and to Argenina's embarassment asked British permission first.
And Pepper refers to the Garrison as being there from 1832, which is perfectly true - so trying to twist Pepper's statement to mean something completely different is a rather desperate ruse.
All in all, a poor riposte.
The British Empire
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. 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. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823 who tried to limit the whole-scale slaughter of seals which were in danger of being made extinct on the islands. A penal colony was also established on the island.”
http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm
First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.britishempire.co.uk/
What a poor article from a previously distinguished diplomat - reduced to arguing silly points of history with Falklands inclined historians.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This dispute has never been and will never be about the goings on in the SWA and elsewhere in the 1700's and early 1800's. It is about the rights of people established here, in a previously vacant land, for several generations.
We, our fathers, grandfathers,, and theirs too made this land what it is for us to inherit in our generations and pass on as guardians to our progeny.
Argies own this land no more and no less than Brits. It is owned by the people of the Falkland Islands, and we will choose from generation to generation how we wish to run it and with whom we choose to seek alliance and allegiance.
Argies give Falkland Islanders no cause to either like or trust them, and so we espouse the British altrrnative. That is our choice. That is self determination.
Why was not corrected yet? Because is correct.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another case of many honest British historians before they are pressured to change it to fit their lies.
“Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
What a load of crap.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 07:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This guy says he is not anti British, yeh right and im the queen of Sheba.
Is he suggesting their only real legitimate claim is a bunch of COWS .
he distorts the past to gain prominence to the future, he totally ignores the basic facts of human rights and ownership.
Argentina has never owned the Falklands and that’s a fact.
And the rights of the people on the islands to make there own minds up to whom they wish to be, in this case british, but of course if the islanders wanted to be Argentinean and we refused this, he would become of the first to condemn us, he totally ignores argentines false claims on other people territory, that she has claimed by military force, the fact remains for all to see, and if the words freedom and democracy have any meaning in the free world at all, then you must respect the rights of the people to choose,
So the fact is simple, the Falklands islanders voted by free elections to remain British, and fly the union jack, if he or Argentina refuses to except this fact then she should be totally ashamed of herself for proclaiming freedom which in reality is a cover up for Kristina’s corrupt dictatorship .
let the Falklands alone to live in peace, British forever
New to the debate here, i'm neither pro-Argentine or pro-Brit at the moment.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, as an aussie I have a question:
Obviously i'm a descendant from a colonialist. As are most New Zealanders and - dare i say it - Argentine's.
What is the difference between the Spanish invasion of Argentina (and subsequent extermination of the native inhabitants) and the British settlement of the Falklands/Malvinas?
I'm just curious as to how its easy to justify one invasion, but then denounce another as colonialism. I'm sure many islanders can trace their family tree back further than I can. (For reference; I can trace mine back to 1906 in Australia).
At the moment I cannot see a difference between Argentina, Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the Falklands/Malvinas, the USA, etc etc
Surely its too late - and we're too sensible - for the UN to be debating something as ridiculous as this when there are much more serious problems in the world... or should i leave Australia, too?
Seems to be a huge case of 'Do what I say, not what I do' if you ask me.
anyone else notice this clown once again refuses to even acknowledge the islander's existence let alone their UN recognized human rights?
Feb 19th, 2011 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0oh and once again he outright lies about the expulsion of argentines, forgetting of course the numerous historical documents (Darwin's diaries included) which show them still there. plus the whole mass murder and land theft argentina committed before and after britain reaffirmed itself in 1833, which utterly destroy any pathetic attempts to claim moral high ground by deluded argentines like the writer of this article. hell britain may have had the biggest empire in history, but with what little power argentine had it committed crimes just as bad as ours, but without any beneficial contributions to humanity that our nation had
sad really, the fact that this tosser was in charge of argentina's policy on this non issue tells a lot about the poor state of argentina's government.
#14 Aussie ;
Feb 19th, 2011 - 08:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to add a third detail to the (#2) Ed's
British Historical Details series....
British Massacres in Australia are :
Fremontle : (west Aussie) 1830 ...Brits commander Irwin...
Convincing Ground : 1833--34 ...Victoria..whale hunters...
Waterloo Creek : 1838 women and children killed...
Coniston : 1928..revange of Fred Brooks killing by Willy Murray..
This article is completely mad. It seems to be mainly about who invited whom to various meetings, conferences etc etc, as though this thing can be settled by a bunch of academics wittering on about 1833.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nowhere, not once, does it mention the Falkland Islanders. Hellooooo......we're still here.........and you aren't going to settle anything without us.
I really love the discussion about the wild cattle and where they came from. Hilarious!
They may well have come from Argentina ( although I doubt it), and they may well have been here for 100 generations. Unfortunately the dastardly imperialistic British ruthlessly exterminated the last of them 10 years ago, so there won't be any self-determination for cows.
#14 Aussie !..are you here ?
Feb 19th, 2011 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are these Historical Details forbidden in school books there !?
I wish you elect your own President(State Head) directly in no time !
Marcos (confirmed Spaniard), who cares about Marika Sherwood's opinions. The FACT is the UK banned slavery BEFORE Argentina. We banned it in 1833 and you did not get around to banning it until 1853!! Twenty years later!
Feb 19th, 2011 - 09:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh and I see that you missed the disclaimer on britishempire.co.uk AGAIN!
You can't be the sharpest knife in the drawer...
At some point common sense will step in.. how about the 2010 - present day trade embargo... read the PN and see how the islanders are being affected. Yet again bullying from a coward across teh water. Not a British thing but an Argentine thing. Stop the ships if you wish, however no comments about the Lan flights... sorry next of kin need to come and go from the Islands.
Feb 19th, 2011 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for discussion, as I have stated previously and so have others...
Argentina - Las Islas Malvinas son Argentina (crap Spanish)
Britian - What would teh people of teh Falkland Islands want
Falklands - Stay British.
END OF DISCUSSION
It should be a three way discussion, also we are no longer a colony, we are a British Overseas Territory - by choice.
How about we just get along and let teh litl country live it's life, free trade from Argentine and other South American Countries. Container ships from around the world and if it happens a fair share of the oil trade for all...Then I woke up.. Las Islas Malvinas son Argentina
Good question Aussie #14, although the Argies would have you believe that the garrison they managed to put on the Falklands for about four months (and one protested by Britain) between 1832 and 1833 means they are the “native” inhabitants of the Falklands. They'll also have you believe that they “inherited” everything from Spain. Funny how Spain never included South Georgia, the South Sandwich and a large slice of Antarctica in their real estate, but it doesn't stop Argentina claiming them...
Feb 19th, 2011 - 10:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's laughable really.
BTW, the Falklands were uninhabited when first landed on (by a British captain).
J.A.Roberts (confirmed ignorant)
Feb 19th, 2011 - 10:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”In other countries emancipation of slaves was also a serious problem, but never to such an extent as in the United States, chiefly perhaps because the question of race prejudice was nowhere else so important. As the South American nations gained independence, they broadened their democratic principles to include absolute prohibition of slavery (Chile in 1823, Central America in 1824, Mexico in 1829, and Bolivia in 1831) or gradual emanicpation (Argentina in 1813, Colombia in 1814, and Venezuela in 1821).”
If you read Marika Sherwood's book, Britain continued to contribute to and profit from the slave trade well after 1807, even into the twentieth century!
Marcos Alejandro (when are you going home to Spain?)
Feb 19th, 2011 - 10:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain continued to contribute to and profit from the slave trade well after 1807”
Not exactly surprising considering slavery was banned by Britain in 1833.
“even into the twentieth century” Nothing more than Marika Sherwood's opinion based on “unpublished documents”... Like anyone would take that seriously.
It still does not change the FACT that Argentina banned slavery 20 years after Britain.
Do all the argie arguments surround the British empire, we took lands therefore Argentina is right? Yes we took lands, rightly or wrongly, but we introduced a lot of technology to places that are now thriving modern nations. This article now suggests Argies are Spaniards? not long ago the argies on here were ranting they weren't and never have been?!
Feb 19th, 2011 - 10:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems its an exercise in listing web site dates for British events which we are less than proud of at times, but even Aussie cant deny he lives in a wonderful country which wouldnt have existed before the Brits came, unless he is aborigonal then he no doubt has british ancestry ( or even asian ).
Fact is the two failed dates of 'attacking' argentina , which as far as im aware, argentina didnt exist as a country until much later? so we lost a couple of battles agains the spaniards, in a long line of battles between the Brits and Spanish....but now you claim it was argie victory??
anyway im ranting, Falklands have thier own fate in thier hands, the British have given them free reign to decide thier future, Argentina should grow up and do the same regardless of somthing that happened way beyond anyone's living memory.
J.A. Roberts( Spain? why, are you from there? )
Feb 19th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British(not Argentina) transported almost THREE MILLION Africans across the Atlantic. That the British benefited from the Atlantic slave system is indisputable. ”Even into the twentieth century she describes how slavery remained very much a part of British commerce and empire, especially in the use of slave labour in Britain's African colonies ( Marika Sherwood's book).
“the British benefited from the Atlantic slave system is indisputable”
Feb 19th, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course it's indisputable, I'm not denying that. We all know this and we can't change our past. It's a stain on our history. We even have museums in the UK.
www.museumindocklands.org.uk/slavery
It's also not surprising that we continued to profit from slavery after 1807, because slavery was banned in Britain in 1833, which is “well after” 1807!!!
What YOU can't change is the FACT that Argentina did not abolish slavery until 1853, which is 30 years after Britain did.
yes we took lands rightly or wrongly.............its not the same you say it
Feb 19th, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we introduce lot of technology...................does that give you permission to take others lands rightly or wrongly??
you feel that you are superior and you have the rights others dont to occupy a land?
argentina should grow up??
'argentina should grow up??'
Feb 19th, 2011 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.....well yes, now you come to mention it. You're always going on about what a marvellous place Argentina is, and what a ghastly place the Falkland Islands are. So you stay where you are and we'll stay where we are.
The only thing that's stopping you is that massive inferiority complex you have about Britain and the British empire. You just can't stop bleating on about how Britain did you wrong 200 years ago, and it's just pathetic.
WTF cares if Britain invaded Argentina in the Napoleonic wars?. Britain also gave the French and the Spanish a pasting and they seem to have got over it OK.
14 Aussie
Feb 19th, 2011 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0welcome to the mad house.
as you will see Argentina bloggers trying to justify there claim over the Falklands, and everything in the would is the fault of the British,
but we British welcomes you, [cousin]
enjoy and partake when you wish.
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another appallingly bad response. I mean, if you wish your argument to be taken seriously, you've got to give reasons, not just make bald statements as though they are facts - again, something that we invariably see from the Argentine posters on here.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0For instance, Snr Cisneros, tell us why including the sovereignty claim in your Constitution is not an unilateral act. Don't just say that it isn't and then go on to say that it might be!
Pathetic.
Im afraid thats the way they respond , it is, because it is....anything else ' blah blah blah im not listening ' . This is purely due to the fact they dont have a legal leg to stand on, unless we co operate and hand over the islands, or the islanders themselves decide they want to be part of tierra del fuego, no made up resolutions, no geological 'evidence' will change the UN's mind. at this moment the argies are in the proces of trying to convince the UN south georgie, south sandwich islands, the antarctic peninsula and the falkland islands are all thiers as there is a sub-sea ridge of land connected to the mainland...therefore its all thiers.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 030 Y Draig Goch
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 033 Monty69
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Eh?
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0lol i dunno i just thought i'd play whatever game he was playing
Feb 20th, 2011 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Disappointing, but then the author is a retired career diplomat and not an historian or lawyer.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0The most noteworthy bit is the adherence to the fantasy 'total' expulsion of January 1833 which can easily be disproved by, amongst others, the contemporaneous records of Darwin and the captain of the Argentine ship.
Nothing is added to the debate other than a general whinge that Britain is/was more powerful than Argentina and the confusion that Britain invaded Argentina in 1806 & 7. Britian invaded a colony of Spain, not Argentina and the invasions where part of an on-going war with Spain.
It's a little disturbing that the facts should be 'massaged' in this way but as I started with ... the author's an ex-diplomat.
30 Y Draig Goch
Feb 20th, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks. What I was going to say, before my computer did something odd, is that I have absolutely no idea what you are on about.
I was responding to Cisneros' suggestion that the British version of history omits whatever happened in 1806-7, and suggesting that the 'framework' was the Napoleaonic wars, ie it was a long time ago and perhaps, in answer to malen's question, there might be an amount of growing up to do. I'm perfectly aware of the point Cisneros says he is making ie that history tends to gloss over the failures. I think what he's actually doing is raking over the past deeds of the dastardly British to get the hotheads excited.
A tendency to dwell on incidents like this and an irrational hatred of all things British suggests to me a degree of immaturity.
You might not agree with me but there is no need to be abusive.
British history doesnt omit it. As several people said on here, they were battles in the context of a wider conflict with the Spanish. You have to remember we have been at war with various european nations for a looong time. We ave a much longer history to teach our school kids and a couple of lost battles in a land a long way from home, you'll have to forgive us.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0This whole article is about how evil britain was in its conquests, thats the basis of his defence. But to bring up two battles , which had nothing to do with the falklands, just smacks of dredging the books for a tiny victory over the british, which wasnt even argentinean.
So ill apologise for getting abusive, but i get really annoyed with the really ignorant repetative nonsense some of the anti british postes put on here.
??????????
Feb 20th, 2011 - 01:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is completely mad.
I'm a British Falkland Islander, and I'm agreeing with you!!!
How you can possibly interpret my words to mean anything else is completely beyond me.
I know exactly what history you teach your school kids, probably better than you do.
'they were battles in the context of a wider conflict with the Spanish', ..........yes, that's what I said.
'This whole article is about how evil britain was in its conquests' yes, think I more or less said that too.
I don't usually get involved in arguments about what happened in 1833 as I don't find it interesting or relevant. I'm sorry I ever commented on this one!
Britain was not 'evil' in its conquests ... taking history out of perspective is a huge mistake. Britain, at any point in its history, was operating within the norms of the time ... much as our european counterparts were doing. We were just, with exceptions, better at it!
Feb 20th, 2011 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0yeah im sorry monty i just realised my mistake, i was reading a different post and replied to yours by mistake, ive asked the moderator to take down the post, most apologies my good man.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0woman actually......and that's ok. I just didn't want to upset anyone (unless they really deserve it! :-)
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0whoops putting my foot in it tonight, im such a doofus.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Miss Monty it is then :)
I just get so annoyed somtimes, even though i shouldnt, at the non stop argie b'shit, i was reading snippets and replying before i fully read...then just realised i'd replied to your message and...doh!
so many grovelling and humble pie sliced apologies
hello all, no need to get hot under the collar folks(thats reserved for me when l answer Nico-plonker Martin-plonker & Marcos-plonker!) (wonder if they're related?) we are all singing from the same sheet, or should be. the Falklands are still British & will NEVER belong to Argentina.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0you would think that the Argentines would have enough to worry about besides trying to claim a land that does not belong to them.
thats intention to commit a crime-pity we can't have the entire lot of the arrested(& deported to Europe).
Ms Monty, surely:-)
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0You shouldn't let them get to you. It is mostly bullshit, but I take a certain amount of encouragement from the idiocy of the average Argentine poster.
I can see where you might have got the wrong end of the stick; I did refer to us as the 'dastardly imperialistic British' in an ironic way, partly because it annoys the fools when we say it in this way, and partly because I know it's what they think. It seems mad to me. I think we are decent likeable people in the main, and the whole rabid anti- British thing seems quite ludicrous.
Anyway, goodnight all.
Y Draig Goch - Confucius say, “ When in hole ..... stop digging” !
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0ah well thats where i went wrong, i saw the one liner and went rarrggghh ...should read the rest really, particularly as i was fired up after dimwits posts on other threads!
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0and i cant stop digging, its what us welsh do best...other than chase sheep...but these falkland sheep are far too hard work, they need chatting up !
Aussie 14. Welcome here! Yes I can trace my family back 6 generations here in the Islands to 1845 - but to the Argentines I am an implanted colonialistic irrelevance who is not entitled to choose the government of my country!
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Islander, you darned pirate, remove yourself from islas malvinas :P
Feb 20th, 2011 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0arquero and others:
Feb 20th, 2011 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the massacres by 'British'.... when did they stop being British and become Australian? Who knows, aye? My great-Grandma was Italian... so... am I still Italian? That would be awesome.
Besides, that is totally irrelevant to my question and has no baring whatsoever on the debate. Every colonial power throughout history from the Aztecs, Greeks, Romans, British, French, Spanish, Italian, Russian etc etc have done bad things. That is why colonialism is dead. And that is why Argentine's are in Argentina.
Nobody is denying that those massacres happened in Australia (to answer by own question, we are taught its the Australian settlers that are the guilty ones - not the British.)
I asked: what gives me the right to live in Australia as an Australian, my cousin the right to live in New Zealand, and you the right to live in Argentina as an Argentine?
I want to know the difference between an invasion of Australia, Argentina, Brazil, Peru, New Zealand etc over the last few hundred years, and an 'invasion' of the Falklands/Malvinas around the same period. What makes the Falklands/Malvinas different?
The falkland islands didnt have an indigenous population and the UK had claimed it before the 1833 date the Argies tout as them being 'forcefully' evicted.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0When the British arrived back again in 1833 there was a small garrison of Argies and civlians, the garrison was already responsible for some apparent crimes against the civilians and some of the argie garrison was hung upon returning to the mainland. Bearing in mind Argentina didnt even exist as a country at that point, just a collection of provinces that claimed independance from the Spanish
The civilians were allowed to stay and some had several generations of families that mixed with the British.
So you can understand the difference between aussie and NZ colonialisation and the Islands here.
Hope that gives a very basic idea of the situation.
So when you hear about all this
Record holder for the Mercopress article with the most untruths?
Feb 20th, 2011 - 04:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Re “usurpation”
Presuming an Argentine sovereignty which in fact didn't exist.
Re controlling sea routes:
The Strait of Gibraltar is only 7.7 nmi at its narrowest point and doesn't need many ships to control; the distance between the Falklands and the Strait of Magellan is +260 nmi. There is no comparison. If the purpose of taking over the Falklands was to control sea routes, maybe he'd like to explain why there was little British involvement in the Falklands just after the takeover, and why it was limited to the eastern islands when the logical thing would' ve been to establish themselves in the west.
Re the Argentine constitution v European treaties breaking UN mandates:
Affirming sovereignty doesn't, affirming that sovereignty can't be relinquished does. And there is no comparison with the European treaties which simply recognise them as British, but don't say they can't be relinquished.
Re British imperialism:
Ignoring Spanish imperialism, without which he and his country wouldn't even exist.
Re Islanders not being citizens till 1982:
A lie, what was restored in 1983 was the right of abode in the UK and rights as citizens in the UK. This only affected Falkland Islanders who migrated to the UK. The people of the UK territories exercise their rights as citizens in their own countries.
Re “ruling the roost” :
No you didn't. You were present only in Port Louis and never even managed to “rule the roost” there.
Regarding the Gauchos hunting wild cattle to supply ships, while the British, not just the English, did everything else:
Huh? This is what Vernet had hired the Gauchos for. The Argentines were mostly Gauchos because most of those who weren't had left on the Lexington.
Regarding France recognising “our legitimate rights”:
“Our” legitimate rights? Spain had no prior rights. France handing over its settlement was France's problem. And there was no VR or UP at the time.
Now if I was a chess player it would occur to me that Andrés Cisneros is painting himself into a corner whereby he has to invite Pascoe & Pepper to the sort of debate that he is saying has never taken place .... but then I'm not much of a chess player :-)
Feb 20th, 2011 - 04:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... That is why colonialism is dead ...”
Ah, a debateable point that Aussie because Russia still tries to insist on its 'sphere of influence', as does the US and China, and more recently, Brazil and Argentina. In the latter's case they would have the south Atlantic as their sphere but sadly there's another country sitting in the way. Empire seems to have become 'sphere of influence' which just continues the modern trend of taking one old efficient word and replacing it with three!
The dispute over the islands prior to 1833 was between Britain and Spain. Argentina was not a party to that until it sent a garrison in October 1832. That garrison was told to leave by British forces in january 1833 and they did so, taking with them 4 settlers. The other settlers remained.
This is proveable.
Now here Think helped me out because I was looking for the records from the 'Sarandi' which was the vessel removing the garrison and he pointed me in the right direction. In addition Charles Darwin on the Beagle arrived in early March 1833 and recorded in his diary the people that he found on the islands. A better observer one could hardly wish for.
So I am somewhat amazed that Argentina, and its diplomats and ex-diplomats continue with the 1833 'LIE' when it is so easily disproved. It is difficult to fathom.
It´s amazing.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0While Argentina, Cisneros and others talk about dialogue, negotiation, peace and decolonization.
P&P and british commentators only talk about confrontation, antagonism and militarism; they prepare kelper´s siege metality for the eternal dispute.
Cisneros is right in his last statement.
I would like to ask P&P for an answer to south atlantic dilemma. Cisneros offer some ways.
Let´s come to Baires P&P, Cisneros invite you; and invite us to London. Call BBC and national TV.
Billious, you are talking rubbish. Cisneros is not talking about dialogue, negotiation or peace .... he is talking about takeover!
Feb 20th, 2011 - 04:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Decolonisation is not an issue for the Falkland Islands .... they've clearly made their choice!
There is no south Atlantic dilemma ... the status quo is just fine!
Now a good discussion in a publuc forum I would support :-)
“So I am somewhat amazed that Argentina, and its diplomats and ex-diplomats continue with the 1833 'LIE' when it is so easily disproved. It is difficult to fathom.”
Feb 20th, 2011 - 05:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's for the domestic audience.
And... to paraphrase Earl Butz... the domestic audience is only interested in ' a loose pair of shoes, a tight bit of pussy and a warm place to shit'....
Feb 20th, 2011 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 099% of the population couldn't give a rat's about the Falklands.
Gday Aussie, I guess you have this place pretty much figured by now... its a bit like a coconut shy.... the RGs are the coconuts.....
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 06:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0@59-whats the matter Nicholas? don't you like the truth?
Feb 20th, 2011 - 06:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pulling a blanket over your head won't help you.
lf you can't stand the heat, then get out of the kitchen!
Why not have the discussion in Malay, why Spanish?
(51) Aussie
Feb 20th, 2011 - 07:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0You ask:
”What makes the Falklands/Malvinas different?”
I say:
You nearly answer your question yourself when asking:
”What gives me the right to live in Australia as an AUSTRALIAN, my cousin the right to live in New Zealand (as a NEW ZEALANDER), and you the right to live in Argentina as an ARGENTINE?”
Well……………..
That’s exactly the problem………... The Falkland Islanders are, after a military take over in 1833, living there as BRITISH citizens, serving BRITISH geopolitical interests, being the BRIRISH excuse and spearhead for the domination and exploitation of the South Atlantic and Antarctica.
May I ask you a simple personal question?
What would your attitude as an Australian be if, lets say……:
Spain had taken over Tasmania militarily in 1833 expelling the British/Australian garrison.
Tasmania was today inhabited by 3.000 Spanish Citizens who said to you: “Bugger off” you Aussies,…. Tasmania, Macquarie Island, Campbell Island, Auckland Island, the Southern Pacific waters and the Antarctic are Spanish property ………….
Because that's precisely the situation Argentina is in today.
I know what I “Think” about it………………..
What do you “Think”?
Ps:
Never mind the comments of Mr. “Ed” and Mr. “Arquero” in the Falklands/Malvinas context,
As far as I know, they are not Argentinean but of Middle East extraction and like to attack the “British Empire”, the USA and Israel at any given occasion. (Who can blame them!)
“ ... spearhead for the domination and exploitation of the South Atlantic and Antarctica. ..”
Feb 20th, 2011 - 08:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0A touch strong Think ... the British are merely seeking to protect their property in Antartica !
And Think is being disingenuous by relying on the Argentine asumption that Argentina had inherited the Falklands from Spain before 1833. Factually this is incorrect and therefore places his whole premise in danger. He will not admit this of course.
Let us put it another way. Tasmania was settled by a small group who were there with the owner's permission. Another country (e,g, Argentina) turns up and proclaims itself the new owner. What should the original owner (e.g. Britain) do?
61 Twinky.... Tasmanai is really not the best example... a better one would probably be either Kerguelen...or better still... New Caledonia
Feb 20th, 2011 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0(51) Aussie
Feb 20th, 2011 - 09:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I repeat below my post No. 61 because, as you can see, it was directed at you....................................
Hope you can find the time to read it.
Regards
El Think
”You ask:
”What makes the Falklands/Malvinas different?”
I say:
You nearly answer your question yourself when asking:
”What gives me the right to live in Australia as an AUSTRALIAN, my cousin the right to live in New Zealand (as a NEW ZEALANDER), and you the right to live in Argentina as an ARGENTINE?”
Well……………..
That’s exactly the problem………... The Falkland Islanders are, after a military take over in 1833, living there as BRITISH citizens, serving BRITISH geopolitical interests, being the BRITISH excuse and spearhead for the domination and exploitation of the South Atlantic and Antarctica.
May I ask you a simple personal question.......?
What would your attitude as an Australian be if, lets say:
Spain had taken over Tasmania militarily in 1833 expelling the British/Australian garrison.
Tasmania was today inhabited by 3.000 Spanish Citizens who said to you: “Bugger off” you Aussies,…. Tasmania, Macquarie Island, Campbell Island, Auckland Island, the Southern Pacific waters and the Antarctic are Spanish property ………….
Because that's precisely the situation Argentina is in today.
I know what I “Think” about it………………..
What do you “Think”?
“being the BRITISH excuse and spearhead for the domination and exploitation of the South Atlantic and Antarctica.”
Feb 20th, 2011 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0and you call us brainwashed Think, your paranoia is amusing.
I can already see that i'm not going to get a straight answer, and there is obviously no point in me getting involved in this debate. There is no point in arguing with people that answer questions with questions. Its like disagreeing with a creationist: a never ending circle of nonsense (only with obscure Wikipedia Links.).
Feb 20th, 2011 - 09:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0In my opinion:
If the Spanish can settle in a part of South America and rename themselves Argentine's, French can settle in North America and rename themselves Canadian, then the Brits can settle in a part of South America and rename themselves Falkland Islanders.
The Spanish did exactly the same thing to parts of South America that you claim the British did to the Falklands/Malvinas. But its okay, because you're no longer Spanish. You're Argentine. But the settlers on the Falklands/Malvinas are British. Not Falkland Islanders. An utterly ridiculous argument.
You are in Argentina as the result of invasion, bloodshed and oppression, yet you argue that the Islanders have no right to live in land that you claim Britain took through invasion, bloodshed and oppression.
Its laughable.
And a hilarious question about Tasmania. “How would I feel?” Isn't that the point of a debate? Aren't you supposed to convince me that this is a terrible thing? Obviously I dont know how I would feel.
At the moment all i'm seeing is a load of right-wing anti-British nonsense about something that happened over a hundred years ago, with some facts conveniently ignored (on both sides), and the using up of resources that could be better spent do something useful. Like feeding, clothing and educating the poor of South America. This is obviously a matter of pride for Argentina.
I was expecting an interesting discussion. But all I found was nationalistic rubbish.
If I were a Falkland Islander I would feel safe in the knowledge that Australia and New Zealand support me, and I would say to Argentina:
“You want them? Come and get them!”
@66.Hear hear, Aussie.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0They tried that in 1982 Aussie and failed
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0“They tried that in 1982 Aussie and failed”
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yup, and they always gloss over that bit (it was some crazy dictator's fault - nothing to do with us) and harp on about something which happened in 1833 and their “inheritance” from Spain.
Laughable it truly is.
Oh and dont forget the 'dirty war' wasnt us either. Apparently they judged that and now they have a free moral launch pad to slag the UK off over actually doing somthing about global terrorism.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0(51) Aussie
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0So much for what you said at Post No.14 then……………
”I'm neither pro-Argentine or pro-Brit at the moment.”
It didn't take “many moments” to make up your mind, mate..........
Besides, I DID answer your question directly and unequivocably……………
The 2.500 settlers in the Falklands are BRITISH citizens working for BRITISH interests, 14.000 kms away from BRITAIN.
It is not an ”utterly ridiculous argument” as you say, it is a fact.
Check it up.......
That’s what makes the Falklands/Malvinas different!
#Aussie...**....I am not Argentine,,,have some British mates and some relatives in Australia( citizen)/Sydney-Perth ..
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0How would you digest on patched British flag +greedy British Mining Firms + her Mejesty attendent Aussie General Governor......etc
don't chin up ...be full independent to have respect !
long live --yellow/black/green-- flag .
éééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééééé
#Think....**.... I am not Middle Eastern !
I doubt you are Argentine like some non-British posters who
use British names ...becouse i know the Argentine spirit and
regard them !
British are very tough..it can not be battled with them by this
your style...you mumble a lot ..change your tactic if you are for Arg. !
what on earth was all that about??
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ DoubleThink
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0What's wrong with British citizens working for British interests? Is that such a crime? Argentines work for Argentine interests don't they?
It doesn't change the fact that the Falkland Islanders, ie those British citizens with Falkland Island Status (and you know very well what that is) have the right to self determination, enshrined in international law. They decide what happens to them in their homeland, not you!
Don't you just love all the incentives Argentina offers to the Islanders to become part of Argentina? I mean economic blockades, total denial of fact, ignorance beyond belief of history....personally i'd shower the Islanders with gifts etc....but that's if i was Argentina and actually wanted the Islands, But as it is the Islanders want to remain with good ole blighty , its thier choice.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 10:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0The trouble with most you remote commentators Sr Think is that you do not know (or particularly wish to know) the truth of what goes on here. We do not work for the British, we work for the Falkland Islanders.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I appreciate that might be inconvenient to your line of argument, but is the simple fact.
We might have British nationality (because we choose it) but we are first and foremost Falklkand Islanders.
I am English 1st, British 2nd and UK 3rd
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Therefore I assume (if I may) -
Stillakelper is Falklander 1st, British 2nd and UK 3rd
Y Draig Goch is Welsh 1st, British 2nd and UK 3rd
..... and that would go for a Scot or an Irishman (Northern) ...... all sounds perfectly reasonable :-)
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think every british home should have at least one Argentinian as a servant, so that we could teach them a little of our history so that when they come on sites like this they can at least get it right.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(77) Stilllakelper and (78) Redhoyt
Feb 20th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What a useless argument……..
And the worst part is……… that you expect people to swallow it.
Is as stupid as to say that I can’t be hold accountable for what my Country did in the past, does today or will do in the future because I’m Chubutense 1st, Patagonian 2nd and Argentinean 3rd…….
Can you see the worthlessness of your argument now?
Like in the old days at the FIFA World Cup…..We had to put up with those three stooges: England, Scotland and Wales.
But you know what?
It doesn’t work like that anymore…………………………
43 Monty69 , A female, allow me to say [hi].....
Feb 20th, 2011 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THINK, I think you may as well give up, you cannot win, the British have all the answers, and all the aces, your arguments fall down as soon as they are hosted by a better adversary, you are out numberd, out bettered, out manoeuvred, out witted, out the door and back to Argentina,
you just cant beat a better superior peoples, British [number one]
Aussie.....
Feb 20th, 2011 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0pity about your hostile reception...but ignore the more infantile responses from Argentines.
The real argument here is about whether Argentina can realistically override contemporary human rights in an attempt to massage what really boils down to.a perceived slight against Nationalist pride nearly 200 years ago.
To my knowledge Argentina seems to be one of very few countries in the world who think that perceived historical possession hundreds of years ago is a mandate to override democracy and self-determination. (Israel, Indonesia, China and Morroco spring to kind as the only others)
It is a dreadful pity that despite claiming to be a democratic country Argentina still childishly denies that the Falklanders have a right to their own country, nation and to decide their future democratically within the boundaries of the territory they have chosen to be home.
When they did exactly the same thing at the expense of thousands of indigenous lives…
The current ICJ ruling on Kosovo (which Argentina opposed) pretty much stated that historical possession is no basis to deny self-determination as long as self-determination is enacted democratically..
This ruling makes Argentina’s irredenta look increasingly silly, outdated and more like an anachronistic colonial land grab when viewed alongside her other claims to South Atlantic territory and Islands.
lol @ Briton, are you trying to upset them? hehe
Feb 20th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0arquero: We often have referendums on the Queen being our head of state, and we have so far voted in favour of her remaining.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The flag is a non-issue. The Blue Ensign is our flag. Why would we change it?
And.. “Full Independence” and “Greedy mining firms?”. You're obviously unaware that they're Anglo-Australian, and employ thousands of Australian workers. Our working class are now among the richest in the world. My cousin (miner) earns in excess of 150,000AUSD a year... And has 12 weeks off.
I dont think you understand how us Aussies work: Sun, Money, Sand, Sea, BBQ + Beer = Happy. Nobody cares who owns the mines, as long as we get money out of it.
Your 'Full Independent' statement is an insult to my intelligence and doesn't deserve a counter argument. You obviously have no idea how 'independence' works.
But, again: Totally Irrelevant.
Think:
Firstly: a debate is when you try to convince someone that your opinion is the right one; by using facts, preferably. You didn't, you just gave me your opinion. And I disagreed. We are all (including the Falkland Islanders) descendants of colonial settlers, but apparently you have more right because.. well...? Your Argentine? Isn't that the basis of your argument?
Your response of 'They're British“ is your opinion on their national identity, not unequivocal fact. Through my own research, over 50% of the residents regard themselves as ”Falkland Islander”. And I should imagine that they work for 'Falkland Islanders Interests', and it would be 'in their interest' to ally themselves with someone that will protect them from a pissed off neighbor with a history of bloodshed and government corruption. No offence.
By your logic, I am Italian/German/Greek/little bit of French/Maori. And goodness knows what the British are. Swedish/Germanic/Celtic/Nordic?.
And 12,000km away? What does that have to do with anything? Distance isn't good enough to convince me of anything. I'm from Australia.
Aussie, wait until you meet O'gara, he's an irishman who rants about english domineering of the 'colonies' , even against welsh and scots as being lapdogs to the english...he goes on to support anyone that is anti british/english...its quite amusing...if then you realise he thinks the IRA was a just struggle against 'english' opression. So if you thought the argie commentators were irrational, you'll spill your beer readig what this guy has to say! but saying that, i doubt the froth would hit the floor ;)
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#81 - lost me there Think. Which argument are you talking about?
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excelent comment by Mr Cisneros.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#81 That is one weird rant ! is he suggesting his allegiances ?? whats this stooges nonsense? im lost as to what point he's making here...if indeed there is one, other than an attempt to slag off wales scotland etc?!
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0THINK, I think you may as well give up, you cannot win, the British have all the answers, and all the aces, your arguments fall down as soon as they are hosted by a better adversary, you are out numberd, out bettered, out manoeuvred, out witted, out the door and back to Argentina,
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you just cant beat a better superior peoples, British [number one
AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!
Really britton? Why uk is bankrupt?
Check it out.uk is FINISHED!!That is the reality,PUNKS!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XbLfje8_jgI&NR=1
Ah, I think I see ... did I mention anything about 'accountability' Think? I merely stated what I see as a fact and assumed that others such as the Falkland Islanders, Welsh, Scits etc would tend to see it the same way. It wasn't an argument but rather an expression of how I see myself. My country has changed over time and adapted to the addition of other Kindoms etc. However I still feel English first.
Feb 20th, 2011 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for 'accountability' I'm not sure what you mean. As you are already aware I am very proud of my country's history whether that be English, British or UK. as far as the Falkland islands are concerned I'm not aware of anything we should be held 'accountable' for!
The islands are British because the islanders currently wish it so ..... they have NEVER been Argentune !
Well the only thig we should be accountable for is settling some islands near a landmass that was in a civil war, eventually Argentina was created and saw these lovely penguin infested islands on its doorstep...“oh thats near us, therefore it must be ours” ... and so the basis of your only extremely tenuous claim. If proximity was the UN's deciding factor on sovereignty....wow what a world that would be ! it would be the medieval period all over again.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0#85 Aussie..... interesting!
Feb 21st, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know&believe the whole Aussie citizens are not reckless like you !
#85 Aussie..... interesting!
Feb 21st, 2011 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know&believe the whole Aussie citizens are not reckless like you !
Such a laughable statement!
I dare you to walk into a pub full of Aussies and tell them you KNOW what they are all thinking! Good luck walking back out again.
Mr. Andres Cisneros' reply is once again poor and simply does not acknowledge the big issues, he instead ignores them, I wonder why? For him to prattle on about cattle clearly shows the weakness of his and Argentina's arguement.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Secondly, Post 66 from Aussie, was a refreshing perspective, one that has not been realised on here, and it needed an outsider to make it. It is hard to argue with Aussie, and the fact that Aussie's opinion has offended Think, only means that Think lost that debate. It is heartwarming to know that an outsider can come on here and immediately see the tirade of Argentina lies that is poured into the public.
Also, I was asked this question by and English friend of mine a few years ago, if the Falkland Islands were to play England at a football match who would you support. My answer, the Falkland Islands every time, because I am a Falkland Islander. So say that Britain is is serving its interests in the Falklands with British people, just sums up your paranoia and poor excuse of an arguement to claim the Falklands as Argentina's.
It is clear, when comparing P&P's articles to Mr. Andres Cisneros', that there is only one side that is justified and true, and that is not the Argentine side. The fact that Mr. Andres Cisneros has not mentioned the current population of the Falklands just proves how weak his arguement is, because as soon as he mentions them, he loses on a legal basis.
Aussie !!
Feb 21st, 2011 - 02:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0would you think to try making people revolution ( what is it ..??)
but you can not make it by beer drinking,....
if you think it you have to use streets like Egyptians...Libyan..afterones !
The answer of Cisneros is very good, he/she responds in coherent form to Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper in its note in Mercopress of February 12. This note is a reactionary pamphlet answering to the seminar Argentinean Seminar of December 3 2007.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The problem bigger than Graham Pascoe's thought and Peter Pepper, is the unique thought, that is to say it is thought as me I say, the rest doesn't interest me., call you Imperialism in the political thing or Neoliberalismo in the economic thing. All that you/they think different it is false or lying, no matter how much the evidences and the arguments are unquestionably true. They have eyes and understanding but they don't want to see neither to understand the true context of the conflict: Anglo-Saxon imperialism hidden in today's day versus legitimate reclamos removed by the force in 1833. Argentina never accent of claiming in the history in spite of being aimed before with a firearm (1833) and threatened nuclear bombs at the moment.
I'm sure you all know that Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper wrote a 40-page article, their version of the history of the Falklands. It is freely available online in Spanish and English. Can anyone direct me to a scholarly work that supports the Argentine view, a published document that actually provides references to support the claims? With an English translation would be nice.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We can say “Yes they did” and “No they didn't” all we want, but the only way for open-minded people to decide for themselves is to see the source of the claims. In GP & PP's article these are in the form of footnotes and references to historical documents, Argentine, British and American among others. Anyone wanting more detail would have to see those referenced documents for themselves.
So, are there any equivalent articles out there than support Argentina's claim? I think it's important for people to develop a balanced view. I've searched for such an article but can find nothing in English.
Regrettably Mercopres that defends the British interests, closed its page in Spanish language, for what most of the Argentineans use translators except for those that speak the English language. We don't know the reasons of this closing, we believe because they don't like the arguments that defend the Argentinean rights. Anyway contact you with this page Web:
Feb 21st, 2011 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.cuestionmalvinas.com.ar/index.php
TWIMC
Feb 21st, 2011 - 06:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Many British and Islanders in here celebrate the new poster Mr. “Aussie” and his swift allegiance for the good Falklands cause…..
He started so nicely from a “neutral” position at post No. 14:
”14 Aussie Feb 19th, 2011 - 08:15 pm
New to the debate here, i'm neither pro-Argentine or pro-Brit at the moment.”
Thirteen hours later he was not so “neutral” anymore at post No. 66:
“66 Aussie Feb 20th, 2011 - 09:57 am
If I were a Falkland Islander I would feel safe in the knowledge that Australia and New Zealand support me, and I would say to Argentina: “You want them? Come and get them!”
That was real quick!!!
I am not “surprised”, “disappointed” or “offended”…….
I just spilled some minutes of my time answering to another insincere poster…………
Think !...good morning.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0his fault was using of --irrelevant-- word at post (85).
in Australia this meaning is used as -- far away...far from me ...
far out...far...not related to me...unrelated...
cheap quasi--backing for Malvinas tricks !....fell himself into a trap .
now 8 pm GMT,it's midnight in Aussie,probably they are sleeping.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0anyway when wake up !
Aussie ; would you tell us somewhat what you know about
Australian Office of National Assessment ( ONA) ?
I think Aussie's conversion from neutral to Pro-Falkland Islander (or however you interpret it Thunk) is not surprising as Aussie's post actually considers the real stakeholder of the arguement...the population of the Falkland Islands. No matter how much you try to ignore or deny us our Human Rights, we (the Falkland Islanders) exist and we are the heart of this subject. If Argentina does acquire the Falklands based on the argument that the current population does not have the right to self-determination because the British (allegedly) expelled the (so-called) Argentine population, then the current Argentine population should return the land forcibly taken from the original inhabitants of Patagonia and head back to Europe, as the circumstances do not differ at all.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think:
Feb 21st, 2011 - 08:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I asked you to explain to me the difference between Spanish settlers and British settlers. And you could not give me an intelligent answer, so I sided with the Islanders.
Regardless of all the historical mumbo-jumbo, i just wanted to understand how anybody can say the Falkland Islanders are there illegally, but the Argentine's aren't. Why is it okay for one invasion, but not another? What makes Argentina so special? -
Nobody gave me a good enough answer - other than insults, attacks on my nationality, and irrelevant questions concerning Australian allegiances to Britain. Obviously i'm not going to side with the people who do this, am I?
It is obvious that most posters on this board don't have the intelligence to debate in a civil, adult manner. And would rather bound around irrelevant facts, wikipedia links, and crappy historical quotes than have a proper discussion.
So far in these discussions I have read stuff about slavery, space exploration, national deficit, institutional racism, the battle of trafalgar, the holocaust, conquest of the desert, the napoleonic wars, Kosovo, harrier jump jets, Brazil, Peru, Chile, GDP, earnings, Education systems, Parliamentary Systems, Football, Rugby, David Beckham and the English Language - to name a few.
I thought we were supposed to be debating the news articles? Obviously not.
Just because you think something is important, it doesn't mean it is.
Arguero:
Again. What the hell does the ONA have to do with anything? Absoloutley nothing. This isn't about Australia, its about Argentina and the Falklands/Malvinas. Yet more irrelevant crap.
Aussie thats what passes for debate here.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they can't win shout down the opposition and claim to have won.
Aussie, kudos to you, you have hit the nail on the head, and M of FI (95), Cisneros bringing up the question of the cattle is laughable (I am a cattle breeder). See the link below, based on Cisnero's thinking the Spaniards could claim Texas back again.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criollo
Thank you Raul, but that web page is not really what I was looking for. It has a bibliography with a long list of pretty much all books and papers written about the Islands. But none of these works are actually referred to in the text. The most I can draw from from the website is that events may have occurred as described and that there may be proof of this in one of the 73 publications in the bibliography.
Feb 21st, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pascoe and Pepper's paper follows virtually each statement with a reference to the relevant historical document. Often, the precise passage is quoted.
In all of academia, whether it's history, the sciences, philosophy or law, when you write an article and make claims or statements, you back them up with references.
I was just hoping there might be something that fits this description that is freely available on the internet. If I was the author of a work supporting the Argentine claim, I'd make sure it was available to everyone.
Argentine author's appear to reference each other and not original sources, documents etc. It diminishes their arguments but the lack of supporting sources may be the problem.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 01:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's easier to shout and whinge, like the author of the article above does, than provide facts in a reasoned way. High in emotion but low on objectivity.
“You are keeping the islands because you are bigger than us and have a terrible history” is hardly a coherent argument.
Must be a latin temperament thing ?
Redhoyt (108) Latinos are emotional and think with their hearts; Anglo-Saxons (Northern Europeans) think with their heads.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 02:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0@Tim
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are wrong Mr. Tim, Mohammeds don’t think they are just fanatical and only speak English and live in Islands.
: )
You must excuse DIM, he tends to miss his medications and suffers from an Arab fixation ..... amongst other delusions :-)
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 03:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0(104) Aussie
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 05:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”I asked you to explain to me the difference between Spanish settlers and British settlers. And you could not give me an intelligent answer, so I sided with the Islanders.”
To explain the quite obvious difference, I gave you a hypothetical example:
”What would your attitude as an Australian be if, lets say……:
Spain had taken over Tasmania militarily in 1833 expelling the British/Australian garrison.
Tasmania was today inhabited by 3.000 Spanish Citizens who said to you: “Bugger off” you Aussies,…. Tasmania, Macquarie Island, Campbell Island, Auckland Island, the Southern Pacific waters and the Antarctic are Spanish property ………….”
What was your response..............? :
” A hilarious question about Tasmania. “How would I feel?” Isn't that the point of a debate? Aren't you supposed to convince me that this is a terrible thing? Obviously I dont know how I would feel.”
I asked you what your “Attitude” would be… not about your “Feelings”…..
And……What’s “hilarious” about my question?
We have exactly that situation in the South-Atlantic and nobody down here finds it amusing………….
About people insulting and attacking you…………….
As far as I can read, I am the only Argentinean that has responded to you….
I have tried to keep a sober language in my responses……
You instead, defined your “style and position” pretty soon at your post No 66:
”Its like disagreeing with a creationist”
”a never ending circle of nonsense”
”An utterly ridiculous argument.”
”Its laughable.”
”a load of right-wing anti-British nonsense”
”nationalistic rubbish.”
”I would say to Argentina: “You want them? Come and get them!”
This is just a lot of insults from a person that started saying he was neutral.
That’s why I still feel I’m wasting my time with you……………..
@112 Think,my dear Think. your example is not very good at all.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 07:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0The big flaw in your“hypothetical”senario is that Spain did not own Tasmania before the British got there, whereas Britain owned the Falklands about 60 years before the Argentines illegally“planted”a garrison there. There my dear Think your arguement founders.
Anyway the United Provinces(Argentine)govt couldn't have thought too much of its soldiers(heroes) because they hanged 6 of them for murdering their commanding officer when they got back to BA.
Yes indeed, Cher Think you ARE wasting your time with all of this.
113 Quite right, this is all a complete waste of time. There cannot be any negotiations with Argentina that involve anything to do with sovereignty unless the Islanders wish it. And that really is the point. Hypothetical arguments about Tasmania leave me cold as do definitions of what a settler might be. All self serving nonsense. It has to be said that many of the Argentinians who post to this forum, display the most appalling sexist, racist and facist attitudes that if truly representative of the Argentinian people should rule out any change to the status quo.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0112 Think
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 12:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You say:
”I asked you to explain to me the difference between Spanish settlers and British settlers. And you could not give me an intelligent answer, so I sided with the Islanders.”
To explain the quite obvious difference, I gave you a hypothetical example:
”What would your attitude as an Australian be if, lets say……:
Spain had taken over Tasmania militarily in 1833 expelling the British/Australian garrison.
Tasmania was today inhabited by 3.000 Spanish Citizens who said to you: “Bugger off” you Aussies,…. Tasmania, Macquarie Island, Campbell Island, Auckland Island, the Southern Pacific waters and the Antarctic are Spanish property ………….””
The obvious difference? How does your explaination/hypothetical example show the difference between Spanish settlers and British settlers. All it does it show there is NO difference. Lets take your example shall we but replace a few key words.
”What would your attitude as a NATIVE of South America be if, lets say……:
spain had taken over all of your land and commited genocide against your people...“
”What would your attitude as a Chillian be if, lets say……:
Argentina had conquered portions of you land and intergrated it into its own territory...”
Oh wait a minute these aren't hypothetical are they, they actually happened.
So what exactly is the difference between a British settler and a Spainsh settler. Not seeing any myself, but then I don't operate under the logic of one rule for me and one for everyone else.
It didn't take Aussie long to work out the difference between self-determination (the right of the Falkland Islanders to choose) and an argument about history between Argentina and the UK.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 03:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just a pity that so many on the Argentine side are so slow to see the difference - or maybe seeing the difference is just not convenient.
Think.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes Aussie only took thirteen hours to side with us Brits, that's because he saw the futile augments that you gave on this post.
You will find that Australians are a fine and up front people with a fine sense of honour, something that Argentinians have no conception of, they are a people that you can rely on in times of conflict. That's why 100 people a week emigrate from Britain to the other side of the world.
You will also find that the Average Australian will never stab you in the back, Now I know that statement is a little bit hard for you to believe when the only thing an Argentinian believes in is stabbing people in the back, but lets face it even your friends that you border with keep a wary eye on you lot at all times in case that little knife comes out.
With Aussie siding with us Brits Aussie in just a few hours it must tell even you thick Argeys that you are on to a loser. But there again I wont hold my breath
But sorry my old British mate, he was not siding with the British, he was siding with the Falkland Islanders, a distinct but subtle difference that so many do not see. The consistant message from successive British Governments for many years is that the Falkland Islands are British for so long as they so wish - that's self determination. And for that UN backed worthy and moral stance we are ever grateful.
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 06:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what the Argies fail to see is that there will only ever be a resolution to “the dispute” when it is a resolution that appeals to the people of the Falkland Islands.
And for so long as the Argies carry on acting in the way they do the Islanders will regard them as unpalatable and untrustworthy. And that is why this gormless Garcia del Solar/Kirchner inspired policy of agression is so mistaken.........because it cannot lead to any form of co-operation or rapprochement.
The South West Atlantic is an important region for many players, and it does not belong to a couple of coastal states, any more than the Pacific belongs to the USA or Japan. We all have a duty to protect the oceans biodiversity from rampant exploitation, and we will only do that through co-operation.
Lets hope the neighbours become more enlightened before too much damage is done.
“Lets hope the neighbours become more enlightened before too much damage is done.”
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's quite a big ask stillakelper...
@118
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You still have enlightened neighbours, SGSSI is a BOT that will remain British for the foreseeable future as currently there's no permanent resident population.
SGSSI is not even on the UN C24 list (as if that Committee has any credibility left whatsoever), so you'll always have some mates nearby if the shit hits the fan.
Plus there's probably going to be a Hydrocarbon Industry in addition to the Fishing Industry around SGSSI, so you'll be well placed to offer any services you may have constructed for your own Hydrocarbon Industry on the Falkland Islands, whatever you guys determine is your future.
How nice wireless,is too bad that acording with geologist,most of the hydrocarbon deposits,and the fish stocks are on the Argentine sea....Argentina had drilled in the 1970 around Malvinas,and did not find any significant deposits.There are however,very important deposits in Neuquen,(mega GAS deposits),around Tierra del fuego,and the SanJorge Gulf,all in Argentine juridictions....
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good luck in you quest.
more voices are being heard
Feb 22nd, 2011 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6TFogCA21Y&feature=related
#14 Aussie:What is the difference between the Spanish invasion of Argentina (and subsequent extermination of the native inhabitants) and the British settlement of the Falklands/Malvinas?
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The inmigration of the Malvinas,was restricted.After the brits send them out of the Islands,thre was a “plantation” of people.So very few Argentine(only 28 are at the Malvinas.
That is the reason that selfdetermination is not applicable on the Malvinas issue.
You can have a look at this article:
http://www.argentina.org.au/malvinas_islands.htm
I hope this is what you are looking for
Regards
@122Juan, That is just George Galloway's opinion. lt doesn't mean that its correct. He doesn't live here. l wonder would he be so eager to give away his home to another country who says that they own it.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You expect too much, these are our lslands and there will be no discussions about sovereignty.
C'est la vie.
“The inmigration of the Malvinas,was restricted...very few Argentine(only 28 are at the Malvinas.”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is blatantly untrue. People went to the Falklands of their own free will, in exactly the same way that people went to Argentina of their own free will.
The Falklands have immigration controls just like Argentina. There are many nationalities represented in the Falkalnds and at the last census the 29 Argentines were the third largest non-British contingent, after Chile and Australia and followed by Germany and New Zealand. There are very few people in the Falklands in total, so it goes without saying that there will be very few of any nationality.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk//documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf
More utter nonsense from Estevez (who really doesn't deserve the rank of officer - even the lowest one).
Except that uk has violated all the norms,subcribed by differents UN resolution.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here is a list in Spanish of all the rules broke by the uk,regarding the differents pact signed by the 2 countries.
It is to be noted that Argentina,presented in 2005 15 protest notes about the violation of the treaties.Not surprisingly,since 1825,when the documents of commerce and friendship was signed,they consistently violated them.
That is the reason,Argentina,should brake diplomatics relations with a ROGUE state and should be expelled from the UN security council,for dereliction of duties.
A partir de éstas y de sucesivas declaraciones y canjes de notas se adoptaron diversos acuerdos provisionales sobre las materias que siguen:
• Establecimiento de medidas de confianza para evitar incidentes en la esfera militar;
• Conservación de recursos pesqueros;
• Exploración y explotación de hidrocarburos;
• Comunicaciones aéreas y marítimas entre en territorio continental argentino y las islas;
• Acceso de titulares de pasaportes argentinos a las islas;
• Construcción de un monumento a los caídos argentinos en 1982 en las islas;
• Intercambio de información sobre la delimitación exterior de la plataforma continental;
• Realización de un estudio de factibilidad sobre desminado en las Islas Malvinas;
• Análisis de la toponimia de las islas.
Entre las medidas de confianza en el ámbito militar adoptadas en la Declaración de Madrid, y revisadas en años posteriores, que continúan aplicándose se pueden mencionar las siguientes:
1. “Sistema Transitorio de Información y Consulta Recíproca”, sobre los movimientos de buques y aeronaves de ambos países. Las partes deben informar con anticipación sobre el movimiento de unidades navales aisladas cuando se aproximen a cierta distancia de las costas.
26
2. “Sistema de Comunicación Directa” entre las autoridades militares de ambos países.
3. “Reglas de comportamiento recíproco para las unidades militares que operen en proximidad
http://www.observatori.org/p
• Establecimiento de medidas de confianza para evitar incidentes en la esfera militar - under the 1989 Agreement. Cancelled by Nestor Kirchner.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 03:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0• Conservación de recursos pesqueros; - under the 1989 and 1990 Agreements. Both cancelled by Nestor Kirchner.
• Exploración y explotación de hidrocarburos; - under the 1995 Agreement. Cancelled by Nestor Kirchner.
• Comunicaciones aéreas y marítimas entre en territorio continental argentino y las islas; Partially fulfilled by Argentina. Charter flights banned. LAN via Gallegos. Maritime links continue.
• Acceso de titulares de pasaportes argentinos a las islas - Argentine citizens currently live on the Falklands, you even wrote this yourself #123.
• Construcción de un monumento a los caídos argentinos en 1982 en las islas - Done, see Darwin Cemetery.
• Intercambio de información sobre la delimitación exterior de la plataforma continental - Under 2001 Agreement. No interest from Argentina.
• Realización de un estudio de factibilidad sobre desminado en las Islas Malvinas - Argentine input invited as agreed in 2001. No interest from Argentina. Demining continues without Argentina.
• Análisis de la toponimia de las islas - yes, to get rid of stupid inventions like “Puerto Argentino”. Argentina has shown no interest in being involved. Official names remain unchanged.
Argentina have walked away from all the Agreements, not the UK. The UK has upheld it's side of all Agreements.
“The inmigration of the Malvinas,was restricted.After the brits send them out of the Islands,thre was a “plantation” of people.”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentinians in 1833 would also be a “plantation” of people. The current “plantation” are still living and breathing. They have more rights than people who have been dead for over 150 years.
• Conservación de recursos pesqueros; - under the 1989 and 1990 Agreements. Both cancelled by Nestor Kirchner.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 03:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Overfishing of straddling species happening on Argentine side
• Comunicaciones aéreas y marítimas entre en territorio continental argentino y las islas; Partially fulfilled by Argentina. Charter flights banned. LAN via Gallegos. Maritime links continue.
Argentina wanted a monopoly on charter flights; the Falklands wanted an open skies policy. When Argentina couldn't get its way, it imposed the ban.
• Acceso de titulares de pasaportes argentinos a las islas - Argentine citizens currently live on the Falklands, you even wrote this yourself #123.
Argentines can visit the Falklands without a visa.
• Intercambio de información sobre la delimitación exterior de la plataforma continental - Under 2001 Agreement. No interest from Argentina.
Britain suggested a joint presentation; Argentina refused.
What about his audience?
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 04:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VTIxgmnu2mM&feature=related
@130 Juan, his audience do not live here either. We really don't care what you or George thinks. Fix up your own country before you want to take over someone elses.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Erm Juan, George Galloway is a crank and idiot and that is why he was not re-elected at the last election. His is just one opinion, and don't forget that he was always a friend of nasty dictators.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0#121 Just as a matter of fact, the Argentines never drilled any wells, test or otherwise, around the Falkland Islands in the 1970's or at any other time.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0They did.May be you do not know,but also Shell,drilled around.This was confirmed by a geologist to me,who told me the density,increses when going to the Argentine coast. Also told me about hte little chances of having something economically there.The San Jorge gulf,is were is most of the oil.Sorry pal ,but there is that info.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentinians in 1833 would also be a “plantation” of people. The current “plantation” are still living and breathing. They have more rights than people who have been dead for over 150 years.By the way there were many nationalities with Vernet,himself was a German,but there werre many english also.
Well the UN does not think so.So the South American countries,some caribeans,who are in the commonwealth also,does not think so about the Self-determination.
roberts: Thank you for downgrading me.I am going to upgrade,you, from Sargent Robert pinochio to general Roberts pinochio
“Well the UN does not think so.So the South American countries,some caribeans,who are in the commonwealth also,does not think so about the Self-determination.”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please show me a link from an offical UN website or mandate that says self determination is not a human right, human rights are not applicable to every human or something of a simular sence.
You'll have a hard time finding this, because such a link does not exist.
This could be yet another case of “yes they did” and “no they didn't”, but I have never heard of any exploratory drilling for oil around the Falklands before the late 90's. Perhaps Argentina explored up to the international boundary. They certainly did nothing in the areas that are being explored right now. Or perhaps it was done in secret, which would have been a unilateral act.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 04:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here's something I really would like to know: if negotiations began, as requested by the Argentine Government, what compromises would the Argentine government be willing to make?
#123 Something else you are completely wrong about. From 1833 until 1982 there was no restriction on Argentines travelling to and from the Falklands, and settling here if they so wished. They chose not to, your loss.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 05:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#134 Produce the data or a source more credible than “a geologist” and perhaps someone will believe you. Not that it is relavent to anything or matters a toss. The oil industry will make up its own mind with techniques and processes that are a lot more accurate than those of the 70's.
“Well the UN does not think so.So the South American countries,some caribeans,who are in the commonwealth also,does not think so about the Self-determination.”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another unsubstantiated Argentine myth brought to you by Soldado Estevez.
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/cancun-summit-backs-argentine-falklands-claim/
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 07:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 032 Latin American and Caribbean leaders back Argentine claim to Falkland Islands
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/cancun-summit-backs-argentine-falklands-claim/
Since,major general Robert pinochio,you obviously do nto understand English,here is a fast course in English language
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/cancun-summit-backs-argentine-falklands-claim/
I placed in Spanish also,since your English is very poor,obviously:
Durante la Cumbre de la Unidad de América Latina y el Caribe, los representantes de los 32 países respaldaron el reclamo argentino de soberanía sobre las Islas Malvinas y coincidieron en una condena a la decisión británica de iniciar tareas de exploración hidrocarburífera en la zona.
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/cancun-summit-backs-argentine-falklands-claim/
By the way,it is not a better policy to be friends with South America,since,
Venezuela has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia
http://msrb.wordpress.com/2010/02/24/cancun-summit-backs-argentine-falklands-claim/
Don't you think is more inteligent and profitable to be in good terms with South America?
kelper: I do not care if there is oil or not. But I did not put money in those companies.I am only relaying the information discussed with a geologist working in that area.
Like I said,Venezuela has double the oil reserves of Saudi Arabia.
It should be better to be friends with South america,is it?
Robert Pinochio,you got a promotion of Major General,Robert Pinochio.
Congratulation.
PS: Roberts pinochio,if you would like a tranlation in Italian,about the Cancun and Rio summit,I can get it also.
They say the same thing has in English.Argentine soveregnity of Malvinas to Argentina.
This section lives to the tittle: “Minds closed indeed”include the KING PINOCCHIO of P&P
.....What...?
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't see any UN mandate links saying that self determination is not a human right, or is not applicable.
I guess you couldnt find the links because they don't exist.
Even if they only found 2 drops of oil in the Falklands, they'd still be the Islanders' two drops of oil. It wouldn't change their right to decide what happens with their land
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0didn't see any UN mandate links saying that self determination is not a human right, or is not applicable
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 08:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have place the links before,resolution 1514,part 6,applicable to Malvinas,gibraltar,and a few others,regarding that ”territorial Integrity supersedes selfdetermination in those territories.
I have place before,and obviosly,you people,should get a promotion to the level of the Kings Pinochio of P& P.
I am tired of reposting the same info over and over again.
So you people did not know about the Rio and Cancun meetings?
About the recognition of sovereignity,to Argentina?
That is a good one.
It was in this pro-british news,Mercopress.
Good luck with you quest of unfound oil...
We have a lot in Argentine territorial waters...
“I have place the links before,resolution 1514,part 6,applicable to Malvinas,gibraltar,and a few others,regarding that ”territorial Integrity supersedes selfdetermination in those territories.”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nowhere does part 6 of 1514 say that territorial integrity supersedes the right of self determination of any NSGT.
UNGA resolutions are a) non binding and b)non retroactive so they cannot apply to events that happened before the UN was formed.
The Falklands are not and never have been part of Argentina, so there is no territorial integrity to consider.
dab is correct...Nowhere in 1514 does it say “supersedes selfdetermination”.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Infact, why don't you have a look at part six of the very resolution you quote:
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
Dab: You are the award winner of the Pinochio.
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 032 countries,UN resolutions,even called F/M.D:
He said General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) of 1960 stated that “all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory…” Those general principles had been applied to the Malvinas question 42 years ago in resolution 2065 (XX), which explicitly ruled out the principle of self-determination as a way to settle the dispute
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3162.doc.htm
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2007/gacol3162.doc.htm
Moreover,look at the timelines of Argentine and Spanish administration.
Pelotudo & Pelotudo works, are the kings Pinochios,
Sorry,but SA ,supports Argentina,This is the reality.
All the links are above.
Regards
“all peoples have an inalienable right to complete freedom, the exercise of their sovereignty and the integrity of their national territory…”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All peoples such as the Falkland Islanders
“which explicitly ruled out the principle of self-determination as a way to settle the dispute”
It is quite obvious that you do not have the slightest idea what the word 'explicitly' means
“Moreover,look at the timelines of Argentine and Spanish administration.”
Which never extended much beyond Port Louis. And you, like many, confuse government with sovereignty.
My question was not rhetorical, I really do have a reasonably open mind. So, if negotiations began, as requested by the Argentine Government, what compromises would the Argentine government be willing to make?
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#147
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 10:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A. None.
“which explicitly ruled out the principle of self-determination as a way to settle the dispute”
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, it does not. Nowhere in resolution 2065 does it say anything of the sort. You will also see if you read it that it says:
“bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514”
And what does resolution 1514 say? Oh yes..
- “2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.”
The resolution:
Invites the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to proceed without delay with the negotiations recommended by the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas);
The original document:
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/RESOLUTION/GEN/NR0/218/28/IMG/NR021828.pdf?OpenElement
#149
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 11:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To which you can add the recent rejection of the resolution promoted by Spain and Argentina, to set aside self-determination where there was a sovereignty dispute. That was rejected to promote the primacy of the importance of self-determination.
Just curious; how does Spain have a claim on Gibraltar if she lost that in the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht ???
Feb 23rd, 2011 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@147 stakeholder. you are wasting your time my friend. l have asked the Argentine posters on here the same question on numerous occasions and they never answer.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 01:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0l can only conclude that it is because they are not willing to make any concessions but want everything their own way.
l have made a few suggestions myself, such as shared sovereignty of Santa Cruz province. They wouldn't like that one!
and as for you snr Estevez, who cares about your silly meetings at Cancun and Rio where you tried to decide our future. Our future has nothing to do with you or any other South American. keep your pinochio nose out of our affairs and use your energy to fix your own broken country.
Isolde (105). Not far off the mark!!! Apart from the Welsh colony who else colonised Patagonia and where did they and the first sheep come from???? It would be highly amusing if you were to plant the Falklands flag in southern Patagonia in keeping with Cisneros' idea of claims. How was Ushuaia established and which flag flew there first??? South American Missions Society and the Union flag by chance???
Feb 24th, 2011 - 01:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Isolde; I gave the solution many times in this forum, my personal opinion only:
Feb 24th, 2011 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina drops the claim while accept independence and selfdetermination for kelpers and the creation of a new state in the middle of south atlantic while britain leaving malvinas, south georgia, sandwich, south atlantic, continental shelf, antartica etc.
@154Billy Hayes, l would be interested to know why you want the UK out of the South Atlantic & Antarctica.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 06:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Billious is, at best, confused ... he believes that if the Falkland islanders opt for independence that the British will leave the south Atlantic. Although told many times he still fails to recognise that even if the islander's opted for independence then the British would remain in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Billy doesn't get it!
“even if the islander's opted for independence then the British would remain in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands.”
Feb 24th, 2011 - 09:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0....and that even under those circumstances we would still have a very close relationship with Britain. What you RG's fail to understand is that independence doesn't neccessarily have to be acrimonious.
Re Billy Hayes (154) - Believe it or not, I actually think that's a halfway fair and reasonable idea - the first constructive suggestion I have read here. Though SG, SSI and Antarctica are different cases altogether. My personal belief is that a majority of islanders would seriously consider independence if they could be sure they did not have to worry about defence. They are currently independent in all but foreign relations and, to be honest, the UK has not done a great job for them on that front.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 10:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0But do you think that Argentina will ever accept the islanders' right to self-determination? The stumbling block today is not that the UK won't discuss sovereignty, it is that Argentina won't recognise that right.
You are saying that the islanders' right to self determination can only be granted by Argentina and that only peoples in independent states have the right to self-determination.
“But do you think that Argentina will ever accept the islanders' right to self-determination?”
Feb 24th, 2011 - 11:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes of course, real selfdetermination; but for that we need to talk.
Selfdetermination is not the problem, the problem is british presence and british dennial to talk.
“You are saying that the islanders' right to self determination can only be granted by Argentina”
Yes, Argentina is the key for kelpers selfdetermination, independence, development and growth.
“and that only peoples in independent states have the right to self-determination.”
No, all people have the right to selfdetermination, but only people in independent states can exercise it, people in a colonial situation has the right but can´t use it because the power is in metropoli head. Selfdetermination is an anticolonial tool; the paradox in Malvinas dilemma is that kelpers are trying to use it to perpetuate a colonial situation; Argentina can´t accept that. Britain should leave the region and Malvinas became an independent state in peace and freedom.
Britain is the alien body and the main reason of the conflict, not the kelpers.
159 How rude. GSY.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But keep going.
Argentine abuse, arrogance and aggression makes UK determined to maintain its legal presence in the South Atlantic. Any transfer of sovereignty is out of the question. Only when Argentina starts being nice and reasonable will we start to get worried.
@Billy
Feb 24th, 2011 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Britain should leave the region and Malvinas became an independent state in peace and freedom.”
As an independant state we could associate with whoever we please....and guess what? we wouldn't be throwing away our relationship with Britain just because you don't like the British presence in the South Atlantic, who are you to define the terms of our potential Independance?
Billious - still wrong about self -determination. The islanders have that right REGARDLESS of Argentina's views on the matter.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is enshrined in the UN Charters and has NO exception!
“No, all people have the right to selfdetermination, but only people in independent states can exercise it”
Feb 24th, 2011 - 01:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wrong. Self determination is a human right. All humans are entitled to human rights.
“Selfdetermination is an anticolonial tool”
Wrong. Self determination is the choise of government, the majority of the world today have self determination and exercise it every year. It is not something that was created for colonial situations but rather a right that is used to benefit the people who were still under a colonial situation they did not want.
Argentinians clearly have trouble understanding what this term means. The same with Territorial integrity. They are misued over and over again, if you want to debate a subject you should first learn the meaning of the words you are debating, it's not hard to educate yourself on the internet.
“Britain should leave the region and Malvinas became an independent state in peace and freedom.”
Argentina is the only one stopping the islands from becoming independant.
BILLY TWO HATS, [YUL] Be sorry playing with my XBOX, mind you THINKing about
Feb 24th, 2011 - 02:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MARCOS and RUFUS [I] FOGGETIT, but while smoking with NICODIN we notice that-
MALEN has been at the cookie jar again . Not many Argentine names of any worth are they.
The point being , names like the above just like Brussels, just sprout rubbish.
They only insult when they have nothing else to say,
They cant justify there theft so blame others,
Deaf dumb and blind, they cant hear the truth,, cant see the truth, cant speak the truth
Falklands are British, the British are great, and the argies are losers losers losers .
Lalalalala, just an opinion
fo all I see all of you are unconscious and dupable commentators by any wrongly informed Historic events like Malvinas...and others ...etc.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 03:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0why ? becouse that my (2) comment's Egypt part wrongly written
intentionally to test you but noone has corrected it ..shame on you !!
the (1952) coup leader was not Nasser !
correct one :
1952 : theArmy forces Faruk to abdicate
1953 : Egypt becomes Republic,General Muhammed Naguib becomes
first President...
1954 : Colonel Nasser forces Naguib out of office and himself becomes new President..
1956 : Egypt nationaized Suez Canal,..UK + France + Israel invade Egypt as a response,...the invading forces to leave after pressure of US + Soviet Union + UN...
Feeble Ed, You made a mistake and now you're trying to make out it was deliberate, therecould be several reasons why nobody corrected you:
Feb 24th, 2011 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 01) we're so used to you posting rubbish that to correct you is a waste of time.
2) nobody bothers to read your pompous, blithering posts.
For me it was (2) by the way, your post at 165 just happened to catch my eye is all so please don't make the mistake of thinking I give a shit.
# 166 ... Redhoyd !!
Feb 24th, 2011 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0why are you mole-eyed & bisaed on British Grimy,Infamous History !?
why are you jealous & combative on these forums !?
“# 166 ... Redhoyd !!”
Feb 24th, 2011 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Was that directed at me or Redhoyt arquero?
@Westis... “who are you to define the terms of our potential Independance?”
Feb 24th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I´m Billy Hayes, nice to meet you. I won´t define the terms of kelpers independence, the frame of the conflict and the agreed pragmatic solutions will define your future status; mine is only an opinion and perhaps a path to find a way out to this conflict.
The way out of the conflict is simple.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 09:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina allows the rights of the islanders, and let them alone forever.
Then the islander will probably ask and get independence, and live in peace, the British forces goes home, and they all live happily after,
the British are quiet content to let the islanders look after them selves,
and go home, the islanders are quiet happy to rule them selves and live in peace.
but can Argentina except that, that’s the question, only Argentina can real answer it .
that’s only my opinion of course .
@BillyHayes, Bill, you still have not answered my question.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 09:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you want Britain out of the South Atlantic & Antarctica?
Isolde, there are several reason why argentina and south america want britain out of our region, let´s see.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain is an alien power in south america and the region, is a dangerous power, is a threat for our countries because its only purpouse is to steal southamerican resourses.
I think that the reasons are obvious. Your selfdetermination is only an excuse for them, it´s a mask that hides real intentions over southamerican resourses. Britain history precedes them, sorry; it´s imposible a menage a trois in south atlantic, tango is for two and argentines and kelpers are here to stay; let´s live in armony or get prepared to live in the ethernal conflict. Sorry, but we don´t choose this conflict, we don´t call britain to our region.
Britain must leave, britain will leave, bet on it.
Isolde - Argentina and more recently Brazil have come to recognise that if they control the south Atlantic then they control Europe's main access to the Antartic. They know, as well as we do, that one day that the Antartic will become important because of its minerals/oil etc and on that day the treaty will fall apart and those who control the access will have a head start.
Feb 24th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain is a proverbial ' fly' in this particular soup! Billy's problem is that Britain understands this too and with a prior claim to a chunk of Antartica is intent on guarding it. I believe that this is the sole reason that South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands are a seperate BOT.
But Billious is right about one thing we are still a dangerous power and as a result Britain does not have to leave, won't leave and you can certainly bet on that!
@redhoyt;
Feb 25th, 2011 - 12:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0I celebrate your words, they illustrate my point, selfdetermination is a mask, is only blablabla, main purpouse of britain is to dominate southamerican resourses in south atlantic and southern hemisphere.
With british words you punish kelpers with ethernal conflic, your words are easy kelpers pay the bill. Thank you britain for exporting conflict to south america and put kelpers in front line.
You assume too much Billious .... South America has NO resources outside of its official zones and certainly the right to NONE in Antartica.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 12:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina accuses the UK of having ambitions but then it has much the same ambitions.
As far as the Falkland islands are concerned though, you are wrong. The islander's can decide thei own future .... South Georgia and the SSS are more strategically placed - which is why Argentina is trying to lump them in with its spurious claim to the Falkland islands.
Argentina has no chance !
@173, 174, 175 Red & Bill. l knew all this already, l just wanted to hear it from Bill's mouth. l agree of course that the reason that they want us & the UK out is so that they can plunder Antarctica. l have posted this before.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0l have a friend who's brother worked in Australian Antarctica. He told us that a crevasse opened up one day(and quickly closed not long after) & they sent a remote contraption down to the bottom.
When they recovered the grab, or whatever it was, it had brought up nuggets of almost pure copper.
For sure there is a fortune awaiting under the ice & it looks like the Argentines don't want to share.
And l agree with you Red, thats why they've included South Georgia etc with the Falklands.
A stumbling block to the Argentine Empire indeed.
Tuesday they celebrated “Antarctic Day”, 107 years in the Antarctic is the claim. Is this accurate???
Feb 25th, 2011 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0A 107 Años de permanencia ininterrumpida de los argentinos en la Antártida
As Argentina didn't make a claim to any part of Antarica till 1943 this once again proves their reliance on perversions of history and, indeed, their inability to count!
Feb 25th, 2011 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_claims_in_Antarctica
Once the antarctic treaty fails it honestly wont make a blind bit of difference who has a historical claim to the place. Everyone will want a peice.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 02:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0EXCELLENT Mr. Cisneros, congratulations. Mr. Pepper enough lies, have unmasked.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 04:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0More ... you are still full of Cr*p. Cisneros gives an emotional response to a factual piece and you congratulate him. Idiot !
Feb 25th, 2011 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0#181
Feb 25th, 2011 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentine school of debate - having the last word is enough.
Mr Pepper: academic debate now in London or Buenos Aires. Although I would like to do in the Malvinas for people to draw their own conclusions.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0When Antarctica opens up [we all hope not]
Feb 25th, 2011 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but sadly it will, the worlds powers will fight if necessary to grab what they can, fight as in political skulduggery bribery , as the wealth down there is fantastic, but in Britain’s favour, we have off shore territory South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands plenty of land for a base if needed
the south Atlantic, as others have said, is the gateway to the world, all other places can be blocked, so in time the south Atlantic might resemble the M25,, lol just an opinion ..
In today’s papers Britain is about to kill and clear out millions of RATS that are harming the wildlife.
300 square miles, no more rats more land to spare perhaps.
Anybody want some rat meat going cheap cheap lol
A truly academic debate would be wonderful ... we could have one ... at the ICJ for example :-)
Feb 25th, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@14 It is not just a case of colonialism, but also the usurpation of the territory of one state by another state.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 02:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yup ... Argentina is trying to usurp the British Falkland islands .... well spotted marvin :-)
Feb 25th, 2011 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0186 It isn't either. Falkland Islanders are happy, British are happy and the Penguins are happy, so whats the problem? Next you'll be arguing that the Europeans should leave South America completely and hand the land back to the indigenous people. Is that where you are heading? Are you an indigenous person or merely implanted?
Feb 25th, 2011 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0185@ hello Red, Of course it would be wonderful. UK shame that does not include the Falklands in the jurisdiction of the ICJ Why?
Feb 25th, 2011 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@187 hahaha, big joke.
Lunch awaits me.
The Falkland dispute too important for the ICJ; Argentina might loose too!!!
Feb 25th, 2011 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://opiniojuris.org/2010/03/09/the-falkland-dispute-too-important-for-the-icj/
Sooner or later, Argentina will have to comply,
Feb 25th, 2011 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and say goodbye-
to the Falklands, and let them live in peace and without fear,
Briton (191) The sooner the better, but it is exceedingly hard to reason with these Latinos
Feb 25th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sooner or later, of not reaching an agreement, the 2 countries will be in court. Until this happens, Argentina will not say goodbye to anything.
Feb 25th, 2011 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Might as well go to court now Mal, it'll be a cold day on hell before we'll accept any 'agreement' that is acceptable to you RG's (ie: transfer of sovereignty to Argentina)
Feb 25th, 2011 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina lacks the courage to go to the ICJ ..... cowards !
Feb 26th, 2011 - 12:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Send the case to Court, but this time, including the Malvinas.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 12:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tell Pepper not see more films of John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Clint Eastwood.
“Tell Pepper not see more films of John Wayne, Robert Mitchum, Clint Eastwood.”
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe he should be watching some of those marvelous Argentine films like........er......
Marvin - the last attempt to take the South Georgia claim to court was limited by Argentina's description of its claim which you will find in the preamble to the ICJ court papers. On that occassion Argentina refused even to recignise that the ICJ has any jurisdiction.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0As it is the UK is already bound to the ICJ and, as Think will tell you, Argentina is not. Until that time we cannot take you there, it's your choice if you go.
Cowards!
Send the case to Court, but this time, including the Malvinas.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0We cannot send it if you do not recognise the court's jurisdiction you idiot ...
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt (200) Told you it's impossible to reason with these guys. Solid Quebracho between the ears.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The upside is that if they are typical of Argentina's intelligensia then the Falkland Islands are safe for the next 1000 years :-)
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0195 Rotted
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ Argentina lacks the courage to go to the ICJ ..... ”
I told you before, since when thieves tell the victims what is the appropriate action to take in order to recover their stolen goods?
Patience Rotted patience, Malvinas is still in the Argentinian coast and not moving any closer to UK, 14000 km away.
It's not moving closer to Argentina either MoreCrap. Ideologically its getteing further away by the year :-)
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0And you are not victims although you love the role so much. You are aggressors. Hitler tried to play the victim as his excuse to invade Alsace-Lorraine in 1940 and thereby France. It's an old trick to play the aggrieved when the truth is rather different. You fool no-one.
If you have a case the go to the ICJ! Cowards!
Remember Rotted, Malvinas are part of Argentina and we decide how and when to recover our islands, keep barking from Thailand, that's all you can do.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt (202) Actually the well educated ones will come up and say “what a damn shame you guys fucked-up in 1806 and 1807, imagine what this country would be today”, and they are damn right. None of these totally corrupt, pathologically lying governments, stealing everything they can lay their hands on. The country could be a world leader if it wasn't for the blatant corruption. Disorganization and disorder (main Latin failings) are the mothers of corruption.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0@205Marcos, -Dr Milkboy, you should remember that the Falklands are NOT part of Argentina, NEVER have been & NEVER will be & you cannot“recover”what you never owned in the first place, so dream on.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0MoreCrap - what I remember is that the Falkland islands are British and that Argentina has never owned them and never will.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 08:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0203 You do talk a load of rubbish.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 09:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0@207 Our flag hauled down by force, Isolde The Malvinas Islands are argentine. It is our land.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Repeat yourself all you like Marvin, but it won't make it true!
Feb 27th, 2011 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0@210 Malvinense, you are just so wrong senor. Of course we pulled down your flag. lt should not have been there in the first place. lt was cluttering up our air. The Falklands are not your land, they are ours. lf you don't like it why don't you take it to the ICJ. Why?
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0@211 Red, The Malvinas Islands are argentine. It is our land.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 03:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0@212 Dear Isolde, lt should not have been there in the first place. Why?
Because it decided the Empire? The case is not brought to the Court because UK does not include islands in the jurisdiction.
Marvin - “ ...It is our land...”
Feb 27th, 2011 - 03:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Prove it!
“ ... The case is not brought to the Court because UK does not include islands in the jurisdiction ....”
Prove it - provide your evidence.
If you cannot you are a dishonourable liar.
Red, partner of discussion, Look around, all speak Spanish. Why?
Feb 27th, 2011 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Look at the map, above their heads is Buenos Aires.
Front of their noses is Santa Cruz.
Beneath their feet Tierra del Fuego.
We did not leave our land.
Look in the google earth.
Redhoyt (202) Actually the well educated ones will come up and say “what a damn shame you guys fucked-up in 1806 and 1807, imagine what this country would be today”, and they are damn right. None of these totally corrupt, pathologically lying governments, stealing everything they can lay their hands on. The country could be a world leader if it wasn't for the blatant corruption. Disorganization and disorder (main Latin failings) are the mothers of corruption
Feb 27th, 2011 - 07:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really,tim horton?
Check this out:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pyeb9Uv8VOE
I don’t wish to be the bearer of bad news chaps.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0but it was you that screwed up in the Falklands war,
you lost, does this not prove you cannot win or steal something that you do not own, and to be perfectly honest with you, Why do you want the Falklands anyway, it wouldn’t have anything to do with the oil would it ???
Tte Estevez (#) (216). A matter of opinion, time will tell, nobody seems flustered over it. What are you lieutenant, army, navy or air force ???? and who is Tim Horton???
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0you guys should feel privileged to be in the company of such sophisticated guests such as the British are. ?????
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is a Tim Horton.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.timhortons.com/
No I am not an army man. Is only a revered person,that was a military.
I am an scholar,not a military,never was
#214 - No proof being offered then ?
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Tte Estevez (220) Interesting. Thank you
Feb 28th, 2011 - 04:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@215 Malvinense, no doubt they speak Spanish in Santa Cruz & TDF, but those places were settled AFTER the Falkland lslands. Going on your logic, we could claim both Sta Cruz & TDF because British settlers were there BEFORE Argentina annexed them.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 07:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0How about you give Santa Cruz province to us? How do you feel about that, amigo? We were there before you & you are an“implanted”population. That is precisely the way l feel about your country's ridiculous claims to the Falklands and the other islands to the south. Believe it or not, they are NOT your islands.
Yes, exactly Isolde. When will they return Port Desire to its proper owners?
Feb 28th, 2011 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0J.A.Roberts (224)
Feb 28th, 2011 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.argentinaindependent.com/culture/history/hms-swift-gives-up-her-ghostly-treasure-/
Very interesting Tim. Thanks for the link.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 06:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J.A. Roberts (206). I was at the funeral and the reception afterwards and it was at these events that I met and chatted with Peter Pepper
Feb 28th, 2011 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!