MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Falklands Facts
In his reply of 19 February to my letter of the 12th, Mr. Cisneros says “the worst thing we can do is quibble and distract ourselves from the main problem”. But it is not a “quibble” to state simple facts, as I did in my letter. So I suggest we get a few facts straight – not unilateral facts, but straightforward historical facts. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesAnother clear and precise response from Peter Pepper.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how Cisneros can find the ignorance to avoid historical facts.
“the Islands are Argentine because the cows were Argentine”
LMAO
Oh, there's an even better one Dendrich. Because the specific name of the Illex squid which makes its home in the waters between the Falklands and Argentina is “argentinus” the Falklands are therefore Argentine. It's been said in comments to the story below.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/28/poor-start-to-falklands-illex-season
“I wonder how Cisneros can find the ignorance to avoid historical facts.”
Feb 26th, 2011 - 12:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would have thought that was obvious. He's Argentine. Being Argentine and being ignorant of real historical facts goes hand in hand.
But we should not lose sight of the other facts. Mr Cisneros was apparently once deputy foreign minister. And therefore accustomed to telling lies. And is he the co-author of a book on the external relations of Argentina? Such books are much in demand in the Argentine educational system. It is always important to have such works of apparent non-fiction to bolster the version of history preferred by the regime. How else to fire up popular indignation when things are going wrong elsewhere?
Would the mass of the population be fired up by an argument with Uruguay over a pulp mill? Or an argument with Chile over Patagonia? Probably not. But hold on. Back in 1982, a successful annexation of the Falkland Islands was supposed to be followed by an attack on Chile in order to annexe the whole of Patagonia. Presumably to be followed by an attack on Uruguay to “recover” what was once part of the United Provinces of South America.
When will Argentina and its population grow up? Not soon, as they are fed lies from the cradle to the grave.
pepper wait to cisneros next week he is going to send you another letter
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and so mercopress can enjoy of some people reading this page again and again
all lies white glove thieves
@2 Yet another Argie classic.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@3 Very nicely put.
You need to change your translation software Malen. It's not very good.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 01:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0.....merely repeated British view from Pepper not historical fact....
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ALL facts ... no emotion. The article is well put!
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now how about that debate Cisneros challenged Dr Pepper to? When is Don Andrés going to organise this debate? Dr Pepper has stated he will be happy to go BsAs and take on all comers. The ball is in Andrés Cisnero's court now. Organise the debate!
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cowards ... all of 'em!
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0malen and ed (and most other Argentines on here), rather than simply saying that the British view of the history is lies, why don't you do your own research as to the truth? If you did, you'd find that all the original sources agree with the British historical view. You'll find that the pro-British views contain proper references to the original sources and reasoned argument for why something is being said.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0For example, Pepper states why he believes that including the Falkland Islands in the Argentine Constitution is a unilateral act, in breach of 31/49, and why he believes that the Falkland Islands being included in the list of EU OCTs is not in breach of 31/49. Cisneros, on the other hand, simply states that it isn't and it is, without giving any reasons.
Similarly, the pro-Argentine view is so full of half-truths meant to deceive those who have no real idea of the real facts, like claiming that it was the British that expelled the settlement in 1833, whereas, in fact, it was the Americans who expelled the majority of the settlement in 1832. Or downright lies, like Argentine settlers having been in the Islands for 13 years prior to 1833. None of the “facts” presented by the pro-Argentine view that I have seen is backed up by proper references to original sources. The claims are simply made, with no apparent reason for them that have any credible basis in fact or in international law.
You are being misled by your government as to the truth. If, as you believe, the Argentine claim to sovereignty is so strong, or at least better than the UK's, and your government believes that the “facts” that it presents to you would stand up to proper scrutiny, ask why your government doesn't take its case to the ICJ.
The reason that it doesn't is because, unlike you gullible lot, the Argentine government knows very well that it's “facts” wouldn't stand up to even the most cursory examination.
How many times will british subjects write and re-write this report hoping to find the one that will make everyone forget the real facts ?? lets see if any brit here cut on to the huge historical diservice made by this report, this report mentions “The first Argentine settlement began on 2 February 1824, when Pablo Areguati and some 25 gauchos arrived at Port Louis, in an attempt to exploit the wild cattle”
Feb 26th, 2011 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Lafone
There was no wild cattle, as a matter of fact the cattles in the Malvinas Argentina came from Luis Vernet's previous attempt at settling there, you can only imagine how fast cattle can multyply without any natural predator.
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samuel_Lafone
the pirats who came later to exploit Governor Luis Vernet's cattles was “The Falkland Islands Company cattle ranching establishment at Hope Place, begun in 1847, with outlying houses at Tranquilidad, Orqueta, Dos Lomas and New House in Lafonia”
I think brits have a lot of reading to do if they are ever to convince anyone of anything.
”On 6 November 1820, Jewett raised the flag of the United Provinces of the River Plate (a predecessor of modern-day Argentina) and claimed possession of the islands. Weddell reported the letter he received from Jewett as:[7]
Sir, I have the honor of informing you that I have arrived in this port with a commission from the Supreme Government of the United Provinces of the Rio de la Plata to take possession of these islands on behalf of the country to which they belong by Natural Law. While carrying out this mission I want to do so with all the courtesy and respect all friendly nations; one of the objectives of my mission is to prevent the destruction of resources ” something that is ongoing under britard occupation from the erradication of cattles to the sheeps to the fish and now for the oil, from now on consider everything and anything made in UK ours, this is our planet not theirs.
12, I, even if one accepts that Jewett's declaration in 1820 was genuine and he had the authority of the United Provinces to make such a declaration, all it was capable of doing was establishing a “claim” to the Islands (although it is not clear that it even did that). One has to remember that there were already competing “claims” to the Islands: British, French and then Spanish. The British “claimed” the Islands in 1690.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, in order to establish sovereignty over territory, it is not enough merely to “claim” that territory. One has to establish effective control. The British, the French and the Spanish had all, to some extent, established effective control over the Islands many years before Jewett arrived on the scene. They then left, leaving marks proclaiming their sovereignty (a well-established and legal act at that time).
So, at its very best, the most that Argentina can say is that it inherited a dispute as to sovereignty, although its “claim” came 130 years after the British “claim”.
The attempts by Argentina to establish effective control over the Islands in the 1820s and 1830s failed, ending with Britain's return to the Islands and establishing effective control over the Islands from 1833 to date.
In 1833 Britain believed that another state was trying to take territory that belonged to it and so it returned, expelling the Argentine garrison (not the settlement) and thus ending Argentine attempts to establish effective control over the Islands. Whether this was fair or not is, I'm afraid, only an interesting footnote to the history of the Islands. Argentina's claim (tenuous that it was) ended in 1850, when, by treaty, Argentina and the UK settled all outstanding differences. The Falkland Islands were, at that time, in British hands. By not maintaining its claim to the Islands in the Convention of Settlement, Argentina accepted British sovereignty over the Islands.
To be fair, the Argentines make it too easy for Peter to rubbish their comments.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's absolute nonsense I. Please get your facts right.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The whole reason Vernet went there in the first place (in 1824) was to exploit the wild cattle which already existed on the Falklands. Vernet's first expedition took horses, not cattle! They needed the horses to hunt the cattle. They even had problems because most of the horses they took there in February 1824 did not survive the voyage. Areguati had to ask for more, and these were sent in March of 1824.
There are many reports of cattle on the Falklands, some of them long before 1824. It is a fact that the French took cattle to the Falklands in January of 1764. After the Spanish took over from the French, Ruiz Puente, the Spanish governor, reported in 1782 that the cattle left behind by the French had increased to over 600 and by 1788 over 2000.
Jewitt was a privateer in the employ of BsAs and had not been sent to the Falklands to take possession. On the contrary, he ended up there because his privateering had been a failure. He “took possession” on his own initiative, with no authority. Buenos Aires and the rest of the “United” Provinces were in complete anarchy in 1820 anyway... What's more Jewitt did not even return to BsAs after “taking posession of the Falklands”, but went straight to Brazil and the first BsAs knew about Jewitt's action is when a notice appeared in the FOREIGN press!!!
It seems I(diot) has his very own interpretation of history, the make it up as you go along version.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Gentleman Pepper !
Feb 26th, 2011 - 04:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0does UK really and eagerly need petro-money ?
money is more important than having little terrains for UK ?
www.businessinsider.com/qaddafi-billion-london-2011-2
#13 if spanish and british had control over Islas Malvinas Argentina the sea lion would have never gone almost extinct, and Luis Vernet would have never set foot in Islas Malvinas Argentina, you are right claims are not enought just as it's not enought to have a placke there saying “I was here” wich does not constitute ownership of Islas Malvinas Argentina, what Luis Vernet did with the illegal seal fishermen did constituted a control over the island, something you seem to have overlooked for an all too ovious selfserving reason.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 017, arquero, what has that got to do with this?!
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 018, I, well, if Britain's plaque didn't preserve its claim to sovereignty, then neither did the Spanish plaque. In which case, where does that leave the Argentine claim, since the Argentine claim is based on “inheriting” the Islands from Spain?
And effective control over territory means the occupation of and effective administration of that territory over a continuous period of time. Not a few months, or even a year or two of sporadic and ineffective “control”. Effective control only happened once the British reasserted its claim to sovereignty in 1833.
17 Arquero- no UK does NOT need Falklands oil(if there is any-yet to be proven if commercial anyway) - If you bother to investigate you will find that the Oil-if any - belongs to the Islands Government - not UK. That is why it is the Islands Govt that issues licenses and controls them.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J.A.R. Cattle origens - correct - from the early French settlement - when the last known descendents were slaughtered in that area, not that many years ago I recall that DNA tests showed them to have originated from that part of France.
Interesting theory somewhere about the Islands being part of the Arg continental shelf? Fact is that we came from the Indian Ocean side of S Africa when the continents broke apart - geologically we are very similar apparently to the are around Durban/Port Elizabeth. the rest of Patagonia was wrapped around the west side of S Africa.
When the S American continent drifted away from Africa we were sort of pulled off the heel and followed at a distance.
A brilliant reply. And very educative too, I didn't know about the Arana-Southern treaty.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0100/100
#19 effective control gives Argentina a better claim then british or spanish since luis vernet Argentine appointment as governor was done to stop illegal seal hunting wich by the way was done with the consent of british royals who had agreed with Luis Vernet's occupation provided he give full report of events in Malvinas Argentina to UK.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I dont think you have to look hard to find the control I am refering to
when history has it that David Jewett seized an American flagged ship named Rampart, committing piracy for a second time. Jewett sent a long report to Buenos Aires dated 1 February 1821 in which he described his journey.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Falkland_Islands
22, I, I wouldn't describe a few years of sporadic attempts at settlement, mutinies, murder, Jewett's piracy and finally being kicked out without a shot being fired as effective control, but perhaps that's just me!
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@17. What's your point?
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#23 nor would I call the british illegal occupation of Malvinas Argentina good grounds for selfdetrmination, but perhaps that is just me!
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0however during the curse of history the seals that Luis Vernet went to protect protect are almost if not totally gone, the cattles that gived birth to Malvinas Argetina settlement were pirated by fakland island company, wich after destroyed any sustainable industry with their worthless sheeps and overfishing licences and now aim to destroy our ocean water with their addiction to fuel. maybe you guys never heard of alberta oil sand, of bp gulf disater, or the exxonn valdez, maybe you don't even want to know what barrick gold arsenic is doing to the water that feed the grapes that makes the Chilean wine going for export. can anyone say lukemya or million part per million.
@25. What illegal occupation would that be?
Feb 26th, 2011 - 05:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 025, I, there you go again about the Falkland Islands Company! Neither that nor the seals, BP, cattle, sheep, or any of that other stuff is really relevant though.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 06:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your first point, effective control and administration since 1833 is good grounds for self-determination for the Islanders. As to whether the British occupation (as you call it) in 1833 was illegal, well that is what you and your government say it was. Britain says that it wasn't illegal. And no one with the authority to declare it illegal (the ICJ springs to mind!) has done so. Until your claim is tested, then that is all it will ever be: an untested and unsubstantiated claim.
#27 none of your fancy words or ICJ payed judges can make the illegal occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina legal. try and see if the israeli occupation of Palestine can become a functional arrangement, and history will show you that it can't, europids seem to think that they are the only people who have rights to everything, and they are wrong since the rest of the world found out that the world is much smaller and resources are tight. history will teach you at the end that UK is too big to sustain and Argentina is still too small, somewhere in between you'll know I am right but by that time it might be too late to make amends.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#26 the illegal occupation of Malvinas Argentina that started in 1833 wich Argentina attempted to free from illegal british occupation in 1982 or did you forget why Argentina went there ??? if you did you will make the mistake of never knowing why we keep coming back to it, I don't forget why Argentina went there no matter how many different lies are printed by moron.
#20 Islander ! which island are you from ? you know that too many islands at the world around.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 07:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if you say the Falkland/Malvinas Islands..any Government there ?
everybody says F/M Islands have 2500-3000 people ,but you must have at least needs 1000 persons ( qualified !) to institute an ordinary Government in principle ! at the F/M reality when you take off the soldiers the rest is zero..where is the people to admin ?
in reality,F/M islands are only the semi-military base for UK .
in Strategy Technic it is called as Shadow Point !! which means that you have a strategical area but where no any real strategical,real economical ,real logistic worth...even if you have oil !!!
*****
#24 jb ...comment 17 ' s point is very clear !
@24. I think your mistaken, there was no illegal occupation in 1833, however there was one in 1982, but it was sorted out pretty quickly.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 07:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 021 MyaRu (#)
Feb 26th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://tinyurl.com/2e7v3xa
http://tinyurl.com/2e7v3xa
section 24 on page 22 of pdf
22 I (#)
Effective control means effective control of the ENTIRE Falkland Islands, not just a small part of it. Neither Spain nor Argentina ever established effective control of the whole of the Islands
29 arquero (#)
The soldiers are not counted in the 3000 population.
@ I #22..
Feb 26th, 2011 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's the problem with relying on Wikipedia, anyone can edit it - including stupid Argentines who can't even get the facts right. His name was DANIEL JEWITT, not David Jewett!!!
Why don't you acquaint yourself with the facts first. That way you won't make such a fool of yourself.
Mr Pepper appears to have researched the Falkland Islands issue very well indeed. Mr Cisneros doesn't appear to know what he is talking about and has debased himself by relying on “inaccuracies”. Shame on him.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Arquero- since i live in the Islands we are talking about - I probably know far more than you about the place! No idea where you get the notion that any Govt has have 1000 people! - quite a few places have less. We as correctly pointed out in 31 have a civilian population -excluding military and civilans working for militray-of 3000 and increasing.
Feb 26th, 2011 - 10:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Economically WITHOUT Oil we are a viable profitable country that has its own finances and reserves and supports itself - so thats taken out another of your arguments as well.
Strategic and Logistic Value - think of global warming and the Antarctic - we probably will be both of theses points then.
Mr Pepper: What amount of errors and omissions!!
Feb 27th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Example, the Falkland Islands have been British in law since 1850.
So... the Malvinas are Argentine in law since 1823 or 1825. They recognized our independence or not? . Pathetic.
@35. 1850 is the treaty of settlement. Go and do some research. Pathetic!!
Feb 27th, 2011 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0An excellent article, well researched and the points put unemotionally and effectively as can be seen by the squirming of the Argentine contributors above.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 12:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina will not go to the ICJ because she knows she will lose. It's easier to maintain the lies in front of its people by attempting to discredit the nature of the ICJ and suggesting that it's a corrupt organisation.
Argentina is afraid of the truth!
On a daily basis I become increasingly contemptuous of Argentina and its people.
#31 I hope you don't mean 1982 effective control of Malvinas Argentina because in 1833 radar wasn't an option, but without any history background you could imagine that there was some sort of boats checking for illegal seal hunting, wich bring us back to Luis Vernet and is short political tenure do to illegal seal hunting, that is a lot more effective control then the illegal british colony ever showed for the land, if there is any effective control without british help I will like hear it.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 01:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I(diot) - Vernett sought British permission and reported to the British. Says it all really!
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0#31 dab14763:
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the links.
I had the “Getting it right” pdf in my disk but never had enough time to sit and read properly.
Have a nice day! :)
I'm still enjoying this - http://patagonesnoticias.com.ar/content/view/5633/1/
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0and indeed this - http://patagonesnoticias.com.ar/content/view/5633/1/
Funny old world ain't it :-)
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0Britain made its claim in 1690 and has had de facto possession since 1833.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 03:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poems are nice, but rarely reflect the whole truth. Poems are for Myths and believer's in Myths
@ He did not like to the editor. Again, but sung
Feb 27th, 2011 - 04:20 am - Link - Report abuse 01845 Vuelta de Obligado. 1850 End Vuelta de Obligado. English and French are defeated. English invaders
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtb5ztJtsWY
more myths
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rtb5ztJtsWY
Britain made its claim in 1690 and has had de facto possession since 1833.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 04:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0Poems are nice, but rarely reflect the whole truth. Poems are for Myths and believer's in Myths,who cares, ladyred!
Is the same as the nazi in occuppied territories.We never accepted that,We invite them in several ocassions to settle the issue in court,they never wanted...
Peter Pan Pepper, The Clown from London, can you please read your own history?
Feb 27th, 2011 - 05:17 am - 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
Or read your newspaper:
“People sometimes ask me why Argentinians make such an endless fuss about the islands they call Las Malvinas. The answer is simple. The Falklands belong to Argentina. They just happen to have been seized, occupied, populated and defended by Britain. Because Argentina's claim is perfectly valid”
MoreCrap - still refering to the the unofficial website that has an apology for its mistakes at the negining. Still relying on discredited evidence. Still an Argentine !
Feb 27th, 2011 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Once again Marcos the Spaniard ignores the disclaimer on his favourite website:
Feb 27th, 2011 - 08:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.britishempire.co.uk/index.php
“The Purpose of the Site
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....”
@31
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“that is a lot more effective control then the illegal british colony ever showed for the land, if there is any effective control without british help I will like hear it.”
When you say 'control' are you refering to administration? or to defence from Argentina? If the former then there is effective control without british help, if the latter then yes, we do indeed have help from the British Armed Forces.
#34 Islander !
Feb 27th, 2011 - 10:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK doesn't need M/F and similair places for arriving to Antarctica..
like as Russian..US..do !
I 'll be glad if you would explain your second paragraph more openly.
What he means arquero is that the Falkland Islands is financially self sufficient in all respects (except defence). The Falklands do not need any financial support from the UK in any way except defence.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 11:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0If it was not for Argentine aggression that defence would not be necessary. Until 1982 there was a small detachment of Royal Marines (about 20 men) provided by the UK for defence. Obviously since 1982 things have changed a bit.
The scale of ignorance is amplified when certain morons draw comparisons with Palestine.....thats like me convincing the public a potato is a 10 inch rubber dildo....
Feb 27th, 2011 - 01:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dr Pepper's letter is a concise summation of the facts. But trying to discuss these facts with the Argentine contributors to this page is like discussing planetary movements with the Flat Earth Society. All that comes back is the useless, empty rhetorical sabre-rattling - and that is with an empty scabbard.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#51 JAR you are serious man ! please don't make me laugh !
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0let alone Economy,you can not even full a little stadium by 3000 !
Arquero. There are countries with fewer people than the Falklands. It's nothing unusual. The FACT is the Falklands is self-sufficient. The size of the population is irrelevant.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 02:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What facts? People from America, specially those living in the south part of the continent till Mexico, knows very well who are the garrison. In this case they are anglo-saxons who invaded our lands. By the way the treaty of 1848 (not 1850) was signed under orders of Juan Manuel de Rosas (who eventually exiled and was buried in Southampton - see his memorial at Southampton Old Cemetery) to end a British naval blockade of Rio De la Plata ordered by queen Victoria since 1845. Facts: Malvinas is closest to Argentina not to the former British Empire; rosas is a very polemic figure who was might bribed; the above text contains fundamental historic errors and should be dismissed.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 04:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0JAR ! you are right... there are many countries below 3000 !
Feb 27th, 2011 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0some are off shore account banking countries the other some are
Pasific islands.
So what Arquer0? It doesn't change the fact that the Falklands are self-sufficent.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 05:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcio. A treaty is a treaty. Just because Juanma de Rosas signed it doesn't make it invalid. He was the Argentine President of the time. What happened to him afterwards is not our problem.
And distance is irrelevant. There are a lot of Chileno islands closer to Argentina than the Falklands but Argentina does not claim them (any more), does it?
Arquero,
Feb 27th, 2011 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My second paragraph - well how then to you explain that since the 1870-1880s we have NOT required any finance from UK to pay for direct costs of running the Govt here and all it provides on an annual basis?
Up until 1982 we used to receive small amounts of CAPITAL Development aid from UK- like all the overseas territories towards long term infrastrucure projects but NOT annual costs. Since 1986 this stopped also - and if you claim we are to small to have our own independent economy- then how come since 1986 we have funded many millions of £ of investment in roads,schools,better hospital, internal communications, etc etc etc - AND have approx £100million in reserves and a fully funded old age pension fund?
All this WITHOUT any Oil.
Don't forget the many quality gift shops !
Feb 27th, 2011 - 05:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#59Islander ! Ok..
Feb 27th, 2011 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...since 1986 you have funded many millions infrastructure ..etc etc..
I want to learn ; How ?..money sources ?..what are you producing ?..
what are you exporting ?..what are you importing ?..
We have any data about M/F ?
Information about the Falkland Islands economy is available on the FIG website;
Feb 27th, 2011 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklands.gov.fk//Economy.html
Briefly, we are exporting fish, wool, meat, providing tourism opportunities, and importing lots of things.
It's all here arquero, scroll down to the figures section
Feb 27th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.falklands.gov.fk//Economy.html
@43 Exactly Red!!! de facto possession since 1833. Not de Jure (iure) Not de entitlement.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#62...#63
Feb 27th, 2011 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 02009/2010 M/F Income Statement has deficit (42.4--47.6)= 5.2ml
They have two options that ,
1) elimination on Fisheries expenditures.
or
2) external borrowing if they don't have internal saving.
Arquero, yes ,budget balancing is a bit tight recently - same as most other countries I think! But we are internally pruning and saving as well as raising some extra, the good thing about reserves is that you can use them to cover short term gaps rather than any savage cuts or massive tax-hike.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We may borrow externally in future to fund money making capital investment projects - but not for just balancing the books and basic Govt infrastructure.
borrowing and credit is a sign of a developing economy, if you didnt borrow or loan etc...this would be a communist society!
Feb 27th, 2011 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#66..Islander !
Feb 27th, 2011 - 07:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if I were Falkland Islander I would demand Military Base Tax from
tight purse Britain ! ...10ml...20ml...30ml...50ml...
So many desperate, circular arguments from Argentine losers. Let's cut to the bottom line. The Falkland Islands have been, effectively, British since 1690. Argentina consists of the descendants of a rebel colony and are therefore illegal immigrants to a land was never theirs except by force. The Falkland Islands will remain British or, when the Islanders decide, independent until the sun has turned into a cinder. Any attempt by Argentines to change this will result in the complete and utter destruction of Argentina. Britain can do this. And if Argentines persist in being annoying, the British people will demand that Britain does it. Twice you slimy dagos have tried to steal our territory whilst our attention was elsewhere. Twice you have failed. If you want to try again, I promise you that Argentina will turn into a group of radioactive craters. Be warned. When you push Britain too far, we become vicious. No mercy. You are pushing your luck. There is not one of 60 million Brits who has any time for you. You are on borrowed time. Be sensible. Back off.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#45 claims ??? I claim that claim irrelevant, lol in 1820 a note on a rock could hardly be considered possetion, I printed my name on the wall of a building when I was a teen and today it's still not mine, you got to try thatone with savages or uneducated morons, possetion means something to the effect of punishing illegal seal hunting, not sending a bunch of pirats, criminals and illegal aliens, you know what I mean ? a responsible act of a country.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#49 how long have you had a president, a prime minister a king whatever it is you elected in the past 4 years ?? when was the last time you past a law ?? effective control.
#52 the occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina to Argentines is the same as the occupation of Palestine by jews, occupation by force, the real stupid morons are the ones who can't see that, a goofy attitute if you ask me, maybe the idiots have a dildo up their noses all the time and can't see the simple facts.
#55 since when illegal alien get to vote for a president or even have a state, unless they go back home ? maybe you are one of those guys who think “europids” deserve better treatment then Roma-gypsys, you said nothing new, you all seem to think alike, this might be the reason africa 100 millions is living in hunger while you worry about 3000 white pirats stuck on a rock you abandoned 200 years ago.
@69 quiet nerve. 177 years before, the islands appeared on Spanish maps. Do not forget Francisco Camargo.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're a halfwit, I.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 08:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Legislative Assembly passes laws every time it meets. That's why it's called a Legislative Assembly.
And you must have a dildo for a brain if you think our situation is anything like Palestine. Where is the native population being occupied by force? In your tiny mind, that's where.
You're boring, with your constant whining on about pirates, which you can't even spell, and illegal aliens, and 'europids', ffs, even though you are one. And you're stupid. Find something sensible to say or bu**£$ off.
#72 cool and when was your last ass-embley democratic elections or is this some halfwit cooked up colony trying to find some sort of international loophole to fit the word selfdetermination in a corrupt beurocratic context, get a life son, you have to get up earlyer then that to shut me up, with you geeky attitude, do us all a favor and do something usefull for the oxigen you breath, spell check this comment in your dictionary “and” $TF@U, you lost your “OR” priviledges.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“occupation” under any other name is “occupation”
Once again we argue over events that happened over a hundred years ago why,
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it cant be to allow the Argentineans to under stand the history and the truth, we know on these bloggs that they do not under stand the truth,
so once again we are reduce to writing it down for them [alas] they cannot read, so what honestly are we to do with a nation that adamantly refuses to except the truth, its like flogging a dead horse, surely the time will come when Argentina either excepts the truth and joins the real world, or they become the pharaoh of south America and just be ignored .
Sorry about this OFF-Topic,but since I saw almost no posting about the eartquake in New Zealand: I will like to extend my sincere condolences,to our New Zealand friends.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have been praying,since that dreadfull natural phenomena happened.
If any of the person in this forum,has any friends or relatives,that were affected by such a disgrace,you can post the name(s),of the person involved,whether they are wounded,or pass away,or destroyed property,and I can place the intentions at the Chruch,to ask the comunity for God Blessings.
I am a Roman Catholic.
Regards to every body!
God Bless Every body!!
“international loophole to fit the word selfdetermination”
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't see how it's a loophole the laws are very, very clear.
Human rights are for all humans, Self Determination is a human right. The UN has stated that all humans are entitled to Self Determination.
#74 the illegal occupation of Islas Malvinas Argentina by europid illegal aliens is true to us Argentines, I was wondering when did Argentina had the kind of technology to haul your rock from UK to our ocean in south america, wierd isn't it, and as soon as you can haul the rock back to UK you can keep it, untill then Argentines will forever try to rid our ocean waters of british pest, they are bad for our seals.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0...So you want us to remove this rock [Falklands] back to the uk. [ok done]
Feb 27th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so what are you complaining about, no Falklands, is it the sea or ocean you are now claiming, I wish you guys would make your mind up, first you want them and now you don’t, as for Islas Malvinas Argentina , you already have this in your head, so keep it there
,illegal aliens , what planet are they from, can you prove it, what if they turn out to be Argentinean.
the only immigrants in the Falklands are you lot, mmmmmmmm
next Argentinean question, perhaps you own chile as well , claims on Brazil perhaps, Argentines will forever try to rid our ocean waters , so now you claim the south Atlantic, great, fantastic, what loony bid you say you come from, please go back there
Comment removed by the editor.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 10:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ Pepper wants to discredit the population of Argentina, but wants to justify the British sovereignty with fishing boats. Pathetic.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 10:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@76 It applies in cases of other former British colonies: Cameroon, Sierra Leone, South Africa.
No Malvinas.
@76 It applies in cases of other former British colonies.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 10:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It applies to everyone Malvinense. Including the Falklands. The Falklands choose to remain British. As do the other BOTs. There are 14 of those.
By the way, Cameroon was never a British colony. It was a League of Nations Mandate and then later a United Nations Trust Territory, part of which was administered by the UK and the rest by France. Please get your facts right.
#78 the same rights europids reserved themselves to claim Malvinas Argentina, Argentines also have to claim them, I doubt 3000 illegal aliens can over rule the will of 40.000.000 Argentine citizens, if selfdetermination is what they want, I am sure they have it when they vote for a new UK prime minister.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem confused I. The 40m Argentine citizens mostly live in Argentina. And the 3000 Falkland Islanders generally live in the Falkland Islands. The Argentines exercise self determination in Argentina and the Falkland Islanders exercise self determination in the Falklands. The Falkland Islanders have no say over what happens in Argentina (it is none of their business) and the Argentines have no say over what happens in the Falklands (it is none of their business). Simple really...
Feb 27th, 2011 - 10:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It applies in cases of other former British colonies: Cameroon, Sierra Leone, South Africa.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Malvinas.”
Human rights apply to every human in the world. No exceptions.
Morning all, I see that not much has changed overnight. I(diot) is still suffereing from europids and has a seal fixation, Marvin the Paranoid Android is still confused and .... well that's about it really.
Feb 27th, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course what is really important is - are the islands still British this fine day? Yes! Magnificent. All is well and it's time for a cuppa :-)
“Mr. Cisneros seems to be ignorant of British history too, since he says that the “usurpation of the Malvinas” was “the manifestation of an imperial project repeated in many parts of the world”
Feb 27th, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Mr Peter Pepper, from London, I do not think you are an ignorant nor Mr Cisneros, however I believe you are another liar hired by the British Gov. to rewrite history. You remind me when last year the British education secretary publicly appealed to pro-empire TV historian Niall Ferguson to help rewrite the history curriculum for English schools. Considering this is a man who has unashamedly championed British colonialism and declared that ”empire is more necessary in the 21st century than ever before“
I am sure you recieve your pay check from the same source that Mr Ferguson does. And about you calling Mr Cisneros an ignorant of British history....
”The British empire was, after all, an avowedly racist despotism built on ethnic cleansing, enslavement, continual wars and savage repression, land theft and merciless exploitation. Far from bringing good governance, democracy or economic progress, the empire undeveloped vast areas, executed and jailed hundreds of thousands for fighting for self-rule, ran concentration camps, carried out medical experiments on prisoners and oversaw famines that killed tens of millions of people.No wonder Hitler was such an enthusiastic admirer of Britain's empire, which he described as an “inestimable factor of value”.
Liars employed to rewrite history - LOL
Feb 27th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Coming from an Argentine, that's really funny. Argentina's revisionist history is the one that fuels their infatuation even though its own falsehoods can be so easily proven.
And the British Empire, great as it was, is irrelevant to the Falkland islands. No displaced population, just a bunch of empty islands that we had a dispute with the Spanish over. We appear to have won that dispute and the islands have been British ever since.
Long will it be so.
Rule Britannia .... etc :-)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cWz9MrHskk
Now that's only the 2nd YouTube link I've ever used on this site :-))
86 Marcos Alejandro
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Niall Ferguson draws his pay check from Harvard and the LSE.
You can dismiss him as a 'pro-empire TV historian' if you like, but this is an untruth and merely demonstrates your ignorance. He argues that Britains colonial past should be put in its proper perspective, and I agree with him. It's a sane and rational alternative to the crazy Argentine 'Britain as as the fount of all evil' lunatic ranting that we get on here.
Oh and I've read his books. Have you?
Spanish colonial past should be put in its proper perspective,
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0then Argentineans would not now be in the south Atlantic robbing decent people of their rightful property, for you to are a creation of a colonial power,
and the Falklands are still British,, please confine yourselves only to what you own, [Argentina] no more no less .
@81 Roberts @84 Zethee That's impossible, there is a territorial dispute between 2 States. The right to self-determination is a right recognized by the international community in favor of the population under a colonial power. Therefore can not be invoked as a right of those who ultimately were imposed by the metropolis or those who would be representatives of that colonial power.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0I have to Cameroon as a former British colony and member of the Commonwealth.
Sorry if it's wrong.
“That's impossible, there is a territorial dispute between 2 States. The right to self-determination is a right recognized by the international community in favor of the population under a colonial power. ”
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Incorrect. Look up the word and what it means. It's a fundamental human right which states that all humans should have the right to vote for the government they wish to have lead them.
The UN Charter states “ ... Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount, ....”
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marvin - can you show me the word 'colonial' in there please?
Resulution 1514 states - “ ... Recognising that the peoples of the world ardently desire the end of colonialism in all its manifestations ....”
Please note the ALL its manifestations.
It goes on - “ ... 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 ...”
No you have probably spotted anothe ALL there. These are important as they make your restrictions nothing more than a LIE !
Argentina is a nation that twists the law and history to suit its own ends and is itself in breach of 1514.
88 Monty69,“ You can dismiss him as a 'pro-empire TV historian' if you like”
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Niall Ferguson quotes:”empire is more necessary in the 21st century than ever before“
Iraq war
“Ferguson supported the Iraq war and isn't necessarily opposed to future incursions in the world”.
“It's all very well for us to sit here in the west with our high incomes and cushy lives, and say it's immoral to violate the sovereignty of another state. But if the effect of that is to bring people in that country economic and political freedom, to raise their standard of living, to increase their life expectancy, then don't rule it out.”
He forgat to mention that the main reason of Iraq invasion, destrucion and the killing of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians was based on a big lie(WMD)
@91 and 92. That's impossible, there is a territorial dispute between 2 States. Resolution 2065.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marvin - 2065 states - ” ... resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 was prompted by the cherished aim of bringing to an end everywhere colonialism in all its forms, one of which covers the case of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),...”
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Colonialism in ALL its forms....... another ALL :-)
2065 goes on - ” ... 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);...”
Note well 'Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples' and 'bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)' and of course the very important 'the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands'.
Twisting the UN's words like you twist history Marvin ?
68 Arquero, last thing we would do is try and tax the British Forces here- they are here for our defence- which UK pays for. The opposite is the case - the base gets tax exemptions and our Govt actually pays for some building projects there each year as an “Islands Contribution” to our defence - be it the swimming pool we built or many of the family houses.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 02:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0In return those servicemen and women spend money locally here in the pubs,restaurants and shops and several local businesses provide services to the base - overall our economy benefits quite a lot from it.
@ Monty 69 leave your kitchen, come and visit.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 02:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then I'll go listen to good music of his piano.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ndIYI3_cgCo
I go to sleep. Good evening people of the Malvinas.
to morrow, Red.
Lady red:See this journal:FORDHAM INTERNATIONAL LAW JOURNAL [Vol. 6:443
Feb 28th, 2011 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0mends “taking into account the interests of the people of the Territory.”
151
Resolution 3160152 went beyond resolution 2065 by indicating
that “the way to put an end to this colonial situation is the peaceful
solution to the conflict of sovereignty between the Governments of
Argentina and the United Kingdom.”' 153 Furthermore, the only
rights of the inhabitants mentioned in the resolution are those
specifically granted previously by resolution 2065. 154 Although resolution
3160 expresses no opinion on either party's version of their
historical-territorial claims to the Islands, it does emphasize that
this aspect of the dispute must be resolved before the rights of the
Falklanders can be addressed. 55
Recognition of the Argentine position becomes more explicit
with every resolution. Resolution 31/49 156 repeats statements found
in prior resolutions and for the first time implies support for Argentina's
historical claims. 157 Resolution 37/9,158 adopted after the
For this to happen, the United Kingdom must be willing
to negotiate sovereignty over the Islands without the participation
of the Falklanders. Its insistence of an absolute right of self-determination
is a misinterpretation of the law regarding decolonization,
a misinterpretation which has proven to be extremely costly.
http://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1073&context=ilj
We have to add the support of 32 countries to Argentine sovereignity,OAS,etc.
But of course,you do not care about “banana republics”,Do not forget to include the uk in those banana republics.
So long LADYBUGRED
http://www.falklands.info/history/resolution3160.html
Feb 28th, 2011 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0One author's opinion! Now let us take a look at it -
“ ... it does emphasize that this aspect of the dispute must be resolved before the rights of the Falklanders can be addressed. ..”
Can't find anything that suggests that. 3160 does say however - ” ... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas),...“
Please note that the interests of the islanders remain the guiding influence.
It also says - ” .. resolution 2065 (XX) indicates that the way to put an end to this colonial situation ...”
THIS colonial situation ... so it IS a colonial situation!
Now let us take a look at the article you quote - a student's piece for his school's law journal written in 1982 by Alejandro Schwed two years before he graduated.
LOL - hell, I've written stuff like that.
SiEster BUGGERED !! lol
Oh, by the way 32 countries sounds impressive but as there are 192 member states of the UN plus a few that are not members you appear to be about 160 short :-)
@ Malvinense #90. The territorial dispute does not affect the Falkland Islanders right to self determination. Self determination is a universal right, not just a right in colonial situations. There is nothing in Resolution 2065 (XX) 1965 which limits this right, in fact it references Resolution 1514 (XV) 1960 where this right is clearly spelled out.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 09:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Cameroon was never a British colony. Please get your facts right.
Membership of the Commonwealth only implies a connection with the former British Empire. Mozambique is a member of the Commonwealth, but was never a British colony. Please get your facts right!
For information is was David Jewett. His signature was quite difficult to read and Vernet made a transcription error in his paper for Moreno (produced 1834) calling him Daniel. I believe Peter Pepper obtained his signature and demonstrated it quite convincingly.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 09:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0Paul Groussac continued with the error, influencing Julius Goebbel who relied heavily on the so-called Vernet paper for his 1927 book the Struggle for the Falkland Islands, the first English language text to consider Falklands history in detail. So the incorrect name is a common mistake.
Thank you for putting me right Justin.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 11:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The territorial dispute does not affect the Falkland Islanders right to self determination. Self determination is a universal right, not just a right in colonial situations. There is nothing in Resolution 2065 (XX) 1965 which limits this right, in fact it references Resolution 1514 (XV) 1960 where this right is clearly spelled out.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Still teritorial integrity takes precedence.Anyway since when the brits respect selfdetermination?In Diogo Garcia?
Salt and peeper are two clown.
Starting when they claim the Malvinas was discovered by the brits, davies and co.
Starting with that shows they are two clowns!1
So long loosers!!
There is a lot of use of the words “pirates” and “invaders” from some Argentine contributors to this , er, discussion. Which is pretty rich coming from the remnants of the Spanish invaders of mainland South America, who slaughetered or enslaved the indiginous tribes when they occupied the country illegally. Then sheltering all those fleeing Nazis at the end of WW2........
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Still teritorial integrity takes precedence”
Feb 28th, 2011 - 12:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, it doesn't Soldado Estevez. See the latest ICJ ruling re Kosovo. Not to mention Southern Sudan, a very good example of where self determination has trumped territorial integrity.
And you bring up the Diego Garcia? So if you think what the UK did to the Chagossians is wrong, then you are effectively admitting that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination. Which is it? Do you agree that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination or do you agree that the treatment of the Chagossians was correct? It must be one or the other. Which is it?
Si Ester - it is you that are the loser. J.A is quite right ... territorial integrity comes a poor second to self determination as shown in the Kosovo decision.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But hey ... so long .... loser!
“selfdetermination?In Diogo Garcia?”
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK did not take away there self determination. It was a different human right that was broken entirely, Please learn what words mean. Forced relocation or Ethnic cleansing is different from Self Determination entirely.
Self Determination is about there choise of government, as far as i know they have there own government.
This however does not mean i agree with what was done with them and i persaonally hope they get to return because what was done to them was wrong. The funny thing with you Argentinians is you'll completely agree with something similar happening to the islanders while criticizing us for what happened to them.
The highpoint of intellectual debate in Argentina:
Feb 28th, 2011 - 01:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Salt and peeper are two clown.”
Why not just hold a referendum? It could have international observers, the UN, the International Tribunal, etc. If the islanders want to remain British, then so be it, if they want to become Argentine then let it be as well. Seems like a referendum would be binding and put an end to all this silliness once and for all.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 02:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sadly Argentina does not see it like that, if in this referendum the 3,000 odd Falkland islanders voted to be British, the Argentineans would straight away dispute this, refuse to recognise the result, and still claim the Falklands,
Feb 28th, 2011 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[don’t believe me] just ask to argie bloggers, and they will confirm this,
????????
There has been a referendum of sorst, inspired and paid for by Argentina, the result was quite emphatic. They didn't want to be Argentine. Even with the loaded question they put, they still rejected Argentine sovereignty.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 03:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is something I've missed, can anyone provide a link to further information relating to the Referendum that was funded by Argentina, including the loaded questions, voter turn out, result, and reaction of the Argentine Government to the result?
Feb 28th, 2011 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It might make interesting reading.
109 riomarcos:
Feb 28th, 2011 - 05:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It didn't have any effect in gibraltar, soubt it would here either.
(111) and (112)
Feb 28th, 2011 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet another ”Little Convenient Lie” from Justin his-head Kuntz……….
Chuckle chuckle……………
” A referendum of sorts, inspired and paid for by Argentina…….. Even with the loaded question they put………..”
Sure…….
Are you maybe referring to that itsy bitsy private opinion poll arranged by some Argentinean newspaper many years ago?
If not please provide Mr. Wireless with a link including the loaded questions, voter turn out, result, and reaction of the Argentine Government to the result.
He somehow has “missed” it (as I did)……………..
Gibraltar's 99% rejection of Spanish sovereignty a few years ago hasn't stopped the Spanish trying to steal Gibraltar so I doubt that a similar poll in the Falkland islands would do any good. These people do not care about the wishes or interests of the islanders. Another point that puts Argentina in breach of the UN Charter and the UNGA Resolutions.
Feb 28th, 2011 - 11:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I see that lady Bug red and King Roberts Pinocchio agree!!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0That is nice about self determination
It is too bad they did not ask To the Argentine s in Malvina's in 1833 and the Chagosian in the 1970's what they wanted to be.....
It is too bad...self determination only when is convenient for me...
Congratulation gays, lady bug RED and King Roberts Pinocchio you have been awarded THE PINOCCHIO GOLD of the YEAR. Together with the two clowns Salt& Pepper you are undoubtedly the winners.....
#91 sure the illegal alien in Malvinas Argentina have the right to vote for a prime minister in UK, I am sure UK counts their vote.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It is too bad they did not ask To the Argentine s in Malvina's in 1833 and the Chagosian in the 1970's what they wanted to be.....”
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0There wasn't Self Determination in 1833. I don't know how someone would benefit from a law that is not even in existance yet...
And yes, every british poster here will agree that the Chagossians were treated wrongly, we do not condone what happened to them. However we did not force our government upon them, we illegally deported them(ethnic cleansing). a different act entirely. Still wrong, though.
117 I: I am no expert on the matter but i am told they vote for there own local government.
Usual cr*p from Si Ester and I(diot). Nothing unexpected. The trespassing Argentine garrison was ejected legally in 1833 because the islands did not belong to Argentina, but were British. Still are!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0British writers have tended to attribute the finding of the Falklands to
Mar 01st, 2011 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Davis in 1592 or to Hawkins in 1594. The account of the former16 referred to
being driven by a storm “fiftie leagues or better from the shoare east and
northerly” from the Magellan Straits (quoted in Goebel 35, Boyson 22,
Cawkell 6-7). Goebel (38) disparages the Davis account suggesting that it
deserves no greater credence than the Vespucci letters.
The Hawkins accountI7 was more detailed and has been subjected to
greater examination. Writing around the turn of the present century, Captain
Chambers, a British naval officer, questioned whether “Hawkins Maiden
Land” could be identified as the Falkland Islands.I8 Three statements by
Hawkins (the reference to 48”s latitude, an observation about the discoloration
of the waters by mud brought to the sea by rivers and the inference
from fires on shore that the land was inhabited) led Chambers to conclude
that Hawkins had been sailing along part of the Patagonian coast. While
Goebel(39-41) accepts Chambers' criticisms, Cawkell(8-9) cites subsequent
investigations supporting the Hawkins' claim. In particular, it is pointed out
that the reference to 48“ was clearly an error as the record showed that
Hawkins had already reached 49” 30'. In addition, at certain times of the year,
after heavy rain, the water round the Islands does become peat coloured.
Finally, it was not unknown for lightening to cause fires in the grasses of some
of the outlying islands.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/journals/AUYrBkIntLaw/1978/2.pdf
The highpoint of intellectual debate in Argentina:
“Salt and peeper are two clown.”
From the clown Salt & pepper stupid liars work:Although it was not the first sighting of all, the first sighting of the Falklands to be recorded in print
was by Captain John Davis (discoverer of the Davis Strait in North America) on 14 August 1592 – he was
blown off course into the Islands by a storm.4
I never read such blatant lies by these clowns,justin liar!
You didn't answer my question in #105 Soldado Estevez... any reason why?
Mar 01st, 2011 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Si Ester - everything that you read that does not suit the Argentine fairytale is, I assume, a 'lie' as far as you are concerned. That the British are prepared to back up these facts with evidence appears to worry you not at all.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0No-body will ever know for certain, which European eyes were the first to see the Falkland islands, but it is in any case irrelevant. The dispute lay between Spain and Britain and was dealt with on both 1771 and 1833. The matter remained vague after the 1771 defeat of Spain, but was resolved unquestionably in 1833. Argentina was never a party to the dispute. Argentina did not inherit the islands from Spain. These are not lies, they are truths ..... if you doubt, then tell your government to go to the ICJ !
Usual cr*p from Si Ester and I(diot). Nothing unexpected. The trespassing Argentine garrison was ejected legally in 1833 because the islands did not belong to Argentina, but were British. Still are!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 02:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lady bug red: YOU SUCK!
Your intellectual brain,together with justin and Salt & Pepper,when it does not suit you,we took by force this is it.Well,I do not have to accept uk sovereignity,even if you are stronger...
ladybugred: Argentina invited to settle the dispute by arbitration several times,uk rejected1
ICJ: uk has to accept first.Which they will not has they did before.
lady bug red: You are such a pathetic pigmy..
If uk has such a good case,if the clown of SALT & Pepper,are so good,why do not take that to the UN?
Because you do not have it!!!
That is the reason the uk,hide documents,during the malvinas war....you are such a liar!!
Take it to the UN,wash Argentine face all over,if you have such a strong case...
uk =NAZI
I see the great academic Tte Estevez has returned to the forum with his massive collection of degrees................pmsl
Mar 01st, 2011 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Leave the discussion to the grown-ups little one, as you should only offer silence, typing away just makes you look a bigger fool.
Si Ester - tell me WHEN the UK refused to take the Falkland Islands issue to the ICJ or indeed any other recognised international arbitration court. The UK already accepts the court's jurisdiction but Argentina does not. Another fact that you cannot handle.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 04:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can tell you when the UK offered to take South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands to the ICJ - but Argentina simply declined to recognise the jurisdiction of the court. Argentina did not say that their decision was based on the fact that the Falkland Islands had not been included because it was Argentine legislation that had initiated the UK's (4) offers and it was the same Argentine legislation that limited the scope.
And we do take our case to the UN. It's made out every year at the same time that Argentina spins its spurious version.
You can't handle the truth ... admit it !
Any time you want to answer my question at #150 Soldado Estevez...
Mar 01st, 2011 - 08:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0l thought “I” was the biggest idiot here but now l'm not so sure. Tte Estevez seems to have crawled out of the woodwork and has overtaken him. -what the heck, they're both Oxygen Thieves!
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Then Argentines have sunk to a new low with their ridiculous statements. Really not worth bothering about.
Hey, way to go -
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?hl=en&sl=es&u=http://www.tipete.com/userpost/noticias/gadaffi-quotlas-malvinas-son-argentinasquot-noticia-gratis&ei=ad1sTf23BsjZrQeGp5D7Bg&sa=X&oi=translate&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CEMQ7gEwAQ&prev=/search%3Fq%3Dmalvinas%2Bnoticia%26hl%3Den%26sa%3DX%26rlz%3D1R2ADFA_enTH405%26tbs%3Dclue:1,qdr:d%26prmd%3Divns
Apologies Soldado Estevez, I meant my question in #105 (not 150 obviously). Any time you want to reply... I'd be very interested to know how you square that one...
Mar 01st, 2011 - 12:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think just because you are a compulsive liar, does not mean everyone else is. I was thinking of the opinion poll, I was also talking to someone else and weren't you the one getting arsey about others replying?
Mar 01st, 2011 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you want to post the results?
I do, although Think took the trouble to take the piss, and seemed ever so knowledgeable, he didn't reveal any of that knowledge, perhaps the information on the Poll doesn't help his cause.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats the problem with Argentine posters here, if information doesn't support their position, they don't source it, they suppress it, hide it, or reveal only a part of it that might support their position, suppressing the parts that don't; it's selective Argentine amnesia.
British posters just source the evidence and tell the truth, whether the evidence supports their position or not, the evidence tells its own story and everyone has to accept it. The problem here is that ALL the original source evidence with regard to the Falkland Islands, whether held in Argentina, or in Britain, and anywhere else, supports the British version of actual history.
Lying, thieving, and corruption; it's the Argentine way, ever since Peronism and his adoption of the Big Lie in order to unite the people.
One day, as a country and a people, Argentina will grow up and realise the truth, but until then they are ripe material for everyone else to take the piss.
Haughty haughty :-)
Mar 01st, 2011 - 03:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You reveal more about how close to the truth my last post was by your pathetic response.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are no real thinker at all, and neither is your Government, you make your childish lies up in the belief that everyone else is sucker enough to lap them up.
When presented with original sources you go all quiet, and then start an entirely different conversation, in the vain hope you'll win a different argument; yet every time you lose them when the truth is revealed.
You lot are pathetic.
Let see is this answer King Roberts Pinocchio:
Mar 01st, 2011 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Such restrictive view, however, was not endorsed, as reflected in para 5 of resolution 2353,which reads:”Any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the charter of the united nations, and specifically with para 6 of General assembly 1514(XV).”
Another case of territorial limitations on the right of self determination is that of Ifni, in which Morocco affirmed that Spain had acquired Ifni in violation of Moroccan rights. The UN general assembly adopted UN resolution 2229 (XXI) which called Spain to transfer Ifni to Morocco.
In this instance, unlike that of the Falklands/Malvinas, there was uncertainty as to the holder of the potential right to self determination,
The treatment of Ifni may well be considered as a precedent establishing the right of territorial integrity under circumstances similar to that of F/M.
Hong Kong is another very good example in which territorial integrity prevailed over self determination.
(The UK transferred the people(about 2 million, not 2000)
http://books.google.ca/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=self+determination+and+territorial+integrity+in+the+falklands&source=bl&ots=i8Fjq-UjuW&sig=h43et2QQwzBvHnPvZNTW5SjqO-Q&hl=en#v=onepage&q=self%20determination%20and%20territorial%20integrity%20in%20the%20falklands&f=false
Mr. Heath on the F/M: While the wishes of those living in the F/M should be given full consideration but not to resume our previous position, adopted by the government between 1970 and 1974 that they could veto any solution that was put forward..
Would you say that self determination, which is one of the principles of UN charter, should not apply to the Falklands?
Mr. Heath: Yes, we have said that before.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=self+determination+and+territorial+integrity+in+the+falklands&source=bl&ots=i8Fjq-UjuW&sig=h43et2QQwzBvHnPvZNTW5SjqO-Q&hl=en#v=onepage&q=self%20determination%20and%20territorial%20integrity%20in%20the%20falklands&f=false
What on earth has something that Edward Heath said in a parliamentary debate in 1982 got to do with anything? As far as I recall. Ted Heath wasn't even part of the government at the time, only a backbencher (although I can't be bothered to check). If this is the best you can do, you must be pretty desperate.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Last night I saw in my dream that UK &Argentina share
Mar 01st, 2011 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0two Falkland -- Malvinas Islands among themselves !!
134 Tte Estevez (#)
Mar 01st, 2011 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are not and never have been part of Argentina for the simple reasons the Argentina did not inherit the Spanish claim to them, nor did it ever establish effective control over them while it was seceding from the Spanish empire. Therefore there is no territorial integrity to consider.
What on earth has something that Edward Heath said in a parliamentary debate in 1982 got to do with anything? As far as I recall. Ted Heath wasn't even part of the government at the time, only a backbencher (although I can't be bothered to check). If this is the best you can do, you must be pretty desperate.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 08:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really? I am not desperate...you are..The brits are alone... I am not desperate,The most important nations in the SA,Supports Argentina,not the uk.Not even on San Pedro(SG and SS).
Argentine Claim and Possession - Following independence from Spain in 1816, the future state of Argentina laid claim to the previous colonial territories, and in 1820 sent a frigate to take possession of the Falklands. In 1826, Louis Vernet of French origin established himself and a number of colonists at Puerto Soledad to develop fishing, farming and trade, and as governor from 1828 attempted to control the widespread sealing. Waking up to developments, Britain's consul general in Buenos Aires protested in 1829 against the appointment of a governor and re-asserted old claims to sovereignty.
http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm
http://www.naval-history.net/F13history.htm
All the sites says otherwise about Argentina control.
You should have the platinum Pinocchio price of the year.
I tough,Salt & Pepper were the winners.
Lady bug REd: Argentina invited 4 times(or more) to settle the Malvina's dispute by arbitration to the UK.
Posted in Terragno document,not the case of reposting them
Wireless
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“An Argentine-inspired poll, conducted in 1994, revealed that 87% of them would be against any form of discussion with Argentina over sovereignty, under any circumstances.”
http://www.parliament.uk/briefingpapers/commons/lib/research/briefings/snia-05602.pdf
“Britain's consul general in Buenos Aires protested in 1829 against the appointment of a governor and re-asserted old claims to sovereignty.”
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To which Vernet stated that his intrests were only commercial and that he had applied for British governance on several occasions.
“and as governor from 1828 attempted to control the widespread sealing”
...So that he could have his own people hunt the seals for themselves.
138 Tte Estevez
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'Really? I am not desperate...you are..The brits are alone... I am not desperate,'
Really???......Hmm, you sound pretty desperate to me. Desperate to get your sticky fingers on something you can't have. And what do you I am desperate for?
I'm living here and very happy about that, thanks. It's been a lovely day here and it'll take more than the likes of you to spoil it for me.
It is too bad for you guys that the UN,regards Malvina's has a colonial case..
Mar 01st, 2011 - 09:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Don't you think that is kind of odd,that almost all the countries recognizes a dispute?
You guys are real good follower of SALT &Pepper lies.
Do you think that Brazil,and 32 countries recognize Argentine sovereignty and they are not familiar with history?
Why you guys think,once in a while and be honest.
If Argentina has no case,so you pro Brits says,why the uk several times wanted to give the island back to Argentina?
Do you think anybody will support Argentina if we have no real case?
Nobody does support Argentina, only when the press are about,
Mar 01st, 2011 - 10:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if south America honestly backed Argentina’s right to the Falklands, then why have they not backed this up with action, rather than just words
Is not the truth of the matter relates to the fact , that you have no legitimate claim worth fighting for ??
may be the reason britton are others. However you did not get much help from any European country.Did France sent troops?Did the USA sent troops to support uk?I bet the French were extremely happy every time an Exocet hit a brit ship.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 10:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actions in support? The fligth restriction to the islands is not an action?
The document supporting Argentine sovereignity of 32 countries,inluding some Coomonwealth countries is not an action?. Did you read about the non docking permit in Brazil,and Uruguay?
At that time,Argentine received help from Peru,Brazil,Venezuela offered 2000 paratroop and also Cuba and the URSS. Argentina declined,because of the policy of non excalation of hostility.However at that time the Junta was discredited.
Nooobody supports Argentina“ AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8529605.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8529605.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8529605.stm
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8529605.stm
uk all alone in the South Atlantic...
Too bad britton,Argentina could have put more pressure indeed....
Argentina is being too nice to Brittan.
Better time with the brits: RAF 164 Argentine Britis squad
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8529605.stm
britton: You get the Platinum Pinocchio award of the year
Monty:eally???......Hmm, you sound pretty desperate to me. Desperate to get your sticky fingers on something you can't have. And what do you I am desperate for? Not really I just do not want an extra continental power to be in the S Atlantic.
”I'm living here and very happy about that, thanks. It's been a lovely day here and it'll take more than the likes of you to spoil it for me.” really? Spoil? So far you are exploiting the brits to foot the bill.
I am very happy here,enjoying my beatifull cottage
“ ...Following independence from Spain in 1816, the future state of Argentina laid claim to the previous colonial territories ...”
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really! Show me where and when that was done.
As for Hong Kong, the island was untenable without the New territories which had only been leased. Si Ester - you should check your history.
As for the war, we didn't need any more manpower and the French provided the missile codes, the US provided intelligence, Chile provided bases. Again, you don't know your history.
” ... :”Any colonial situation which partially or completely destroys the national unity and territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the charter of the united nations, and specifically with para 6 of General assembly 1514(XV)....”
Argentina has never had any territorial integrity over the Falkland Islands and the recent Kosovo case has diminished the importance of the concept of territorial integrity. It would seem Si Ester, that you don't know your international law either !
“However you did not get much help from any European country.Did France sent troops?Did the USA sent troops to support uk?I bet the French were extremely happy every time an Exocet hit a brit ship.”
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, if you must ask. France sent over Exocets and fighterjets so that our pilots could train against them. The US gave a lot of help down to intelligence, missiles and even offered to loan us an entire US navy battlegroup including aircraft carrier which because of different tech and equipment would have had to have been sailed by US navy service men.
Fact is Estevez, we didn't need the help. Argentina clearly did.
As for the 32 SA nations who support your claim, you keep going on about it like we care or it changes anything. It doesn't. The Islanders are still there and will still be supported by the UK.
And about all your nations who offered to sent troops in the war...Peru,Brazil,Venezuela offered 2000 paratroop and also Cuba and the URSS.
Clearly a lie and a massive one at that. Proof please.
I have come to the impression that Si Ester is not a serious contender as he offers no supporting evidence for his historical assertions and either out of date or irrelevant sources for the UN arguments.
Mar 01st, 2011 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A waste of time really.
Good morning all .... everything as it should be? Yes! Cracking :-)
That Cuba offered military help is true. Brazil lent some military aircrafts only, but did so secretly. I doubt it did offer troops. As for the other countries, I don't know.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Lady bug: have come to the impression that Si Ester is not a serious contender as he offers no supporting evidence for his historical assertions and either out of date or irrelevant sources for the UN arguments.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0AHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
The only one that offer no evidence are you guys.
Where are the links?
Evidence?? None !
I placed links,were are yours?
The reality,is ARGENTINA get more and more support.
However,since I do not believe Europe is a good place for the future,you guys,keep betting in wrong spot
Good luck in your place...
I have the impression that lady bug is TOTALLY irrelevant..
What a waste of time with these looser.....
Pathetic,lady bug RED.....Really pathetic.....
Yes, that's what I said. So far you have failed to answer nearly ever proposition put your way. Until you do ... you are not serious!
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0A waste of space on these pages ...... after all, what is your point about Europe's future? What relevance does it have either to the historical or internation arguments surrounding Argentina's spurious claim to the Falkland islands.
Si Ester - go back to sleep!
@ The British wanted to conduct a reconnaissance of the islands.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 02:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Spain said no in 1748.
Arrived illegally. Were others.
Since they arrived until they left, they were never alone there.
Say Mr. Pepper. Pathetic.
Red, Place all
Noting the existence of a DISPUTE between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over these islands,....
1) 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 Malvinas Islands (Falklands)
INTEREST no Desires.
Yes, that's what I said. So far you have failed to answer nearly ever proposition put your way. Until you do ... you are not serious!
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 02:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0A waste of space on these pages ...... after all, what is your point about Europe's future? What relevance does it have either to the historical or internation arguments surrounding Argentina's spurious claim to the Falkland islands.
Si Ester - go back to sleep!
Really? You did not post ANY documents.....just your irrelevant words.......
Yes, Lady Bug RED,after reading your boooooring post,I am getting sleepy.....
Better than counting sheeps........
You should joint SALT & PEPPER,tremendous hilarious tales......
May be you will get more interest from readers.......
About Europe...you are not defending the EUROPEAN civilization?..... well you are barking at the wrong spot.......I think there is no future there...I am glad that Argentina is apart from that trouble continent...The only ones to spoil the peace,is as USUAL...The Brits buggers.....
Seem they were born to bug.....always in the wrong pond....
87 Redhoyt “Rule Britannia .... etc ”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0???
“British troops on front line in Afghanistan told they face the sack”
“At the same time as planning a no-fly zone over Libya, the Tory-led Government chooses today of all days to sack RAF personnel.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/onthefrontline/8355902/British-troops-on-front-line-in-Afghanistan-told-they-face-the-sack.html
The one argument Argentina cannot use is history and a “historical right”.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Let us for the sake of discussion assume, that Argentina was in full possession of the Falklands Islands before 1833 and that Great Britain for that reason should hand the islands back to Argentina.
On May 17th, 1810 - who owned what is today Argentina?
Spain.
The first Spanish settlement was established on February 2nd, 1536.
Even if we assume this early date to be the year of Spanish ownership of Argentina (the settlement was abandoned in 1541 and not reestablished until 1580), then we must ask:
On February 1st, 1536 - who owned what is today Argentina?
The Indigenous peoples of Argentina.
On the basis of a historical right to own, GB must hand the Falklands back to Argentina, which then - history, don't you know? - hands Argentina back to Spain, which hands it back to the Indigenous peoples of Argentina.
All of you Europeans, who don't have a visa from the historically rightful owners: the Ava Guaraní, Atacamas, Calchaquí, Charrúa, Chorote, Chané, Chulupí, Comechingones, Diaguitas, Mby'a Guaraní, Guaraní, Guaycurú, Huarpes, Lule-Tonocoté, Kolla, Mapuches, Mocoví, Omaguacas, Ona, Pilagá, Rankulche, Sanavirones, Tapiete, Tehuelche, Toba (Qom-lik), Tonocoté, Tupí guaraní, Vilela, Wichí, Yámana -
leave within thirty days!
History, don't you know?
As is known, possession is 99%.
The one argument Argentina cannot use is history and a “historical right”.
Marvin - you are quite right, interests are not desires. Now please explain how it would be in the islanders 'interests' to be forcibly given to Argentina.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 03:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Si -Ester, I love a challenge, so concisely, without your usual rambling, make a point. I'll come back with whatever sources I can find to answer your point. A relevant point though please.
MoreCrap ... don't you fret lad, the islands are safe enough.
Si -Ester, I love a challenge, so concisely, without your usual rambling, make a point. I'll come back with whatever sources I can find to answer your point. A relevant point though please.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 04:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0MoreCrap ... don't you fret lad, the islands are safe enough.
Yes lady bug RED,The island were safe until you mess them up
The were happy settlers until the buggers came,far away,14,000KM away.
Let see the logic of St John:On February 1st, 1536 - who owned what is today Argentina?
The Indigenous peoples of Argentina.
The problem,there are descendants of them,they mixed with the populationEuropeans etc,and formed a nation.They live and decide the future TOGHETER.It is not an aparteheid. WE DECIDE OUR FUTURE>NOT A country or a Monarch 14,000 km away.,That is the diference.The malvinas are a part of the South Atlantic.Which are the countries with the majority of the population in the South Atlantic?,Argentina,Uruguay,Paraguay,Brasil and Chile (more to the Pacific the latter),that is the difference.We did not kick out the residents in Malvinas,in fact,the constitution in Argentina,even gives them a political representation,full citizenship,the can get pension,study for free,up to the University level,no body is segregating them...
So your logic is totally inapropiate.
Argentina does not want a monarch 14,000km away to decide in our vital space.You do not get that,do you?
154 St.John
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0The one argument UK cannot use is history
”The British empire was, after all, an avowedly racist despotism built on ethnic cleansing, enslavement, continual wars and savage repression, land theft and merciless exploitation. Far from bringing good governance, democracy or economic progress, the empire undeveloped vast areas, executed and jailed hundreds of thousands for fighting for self-rule, ran concentration camps, carried out medical experiments on prisoners and oversaw famines that killed tens of millions of people.No wonder Hitler was such an enthusiastic admirer of Britain's empire, which he described as an “inestimable factor of value”.
@#156
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Their land was stolen by force by somebody representing a monarch 10,500 km away.
Most of the very few survivors strongly disagree to your claims of no apartheid, they feel discriminated and treated badly.
What do your historybooks tell about Julio Argentino Roca (el assasino) and what happened in the 'Campaña del Desierto'?
“10.539 mujeres y niños y 2.320 guerreros fueron tomados prisioneros y unos 3.000 enviados a Buenos Aires, donde eran separados por sexo, a fin de evitar que procrearan hijos. Las mujeres fueron dispersas por los diferentes barrios de la ciudad como sirvientas, mientras una parte de los hombres fueron enviados a la isla Martín García, donde murieron, en su gran mayoría, a los pocos años de reclusión.”
10,539 women and children and 2,320 warriers were taken prisoners. About 3,000 of them were taken to Buenos Aíres wher they were separated in men an d women, to avoid they had children. The women were divided to the different quarters in the city as servants (in actual effect as house slaves), while part of the men were isolated on Martín García island, where the majority died after a few years of internment.
La Nación del 21 de enero: ‘Llegan los indios prisioneros con sus familias a los cuales los trajeron caminando en su mayor parte o en carros, la desesperación, el llanto no cesa, se les quita a las madres sus hijos para en su presencia regalarlos a pesar de los gritos, los alaridos y las súplicas que con los brazos al cielo dirigen las mujeres indias. En aquel marco humano los hombres indios se tapan la cara, otros miran resignadamente al suelo, la madre aprieta contra el seno al hijo de sus entrañas, el padre indio se cruza por delante para defender a su familia de los avances de la civilización.’
“Apropiación de la tierra a los aborígenes y genocidios en el Río de la Plata”, Fernando Del Corro, periodista y docente de la UBA.
No doubt the indigenous people were very, very grateful.
From the Great God Wiki - “ ..... first settlement in modern Argentina was the Fort of Sancti Spiritu established in 1527 next to the Paraná River. Buenos Aires, a permanent colony, was established in 1536 but was destroyed by natives. The city was established again in 1580 as part of the Governorate of the Río de la Plata....”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well the Spanish were in that area although just how much they owned is a moot point. What St. John has to do with anything is a mystery to me. Indeed what 1536 has to do with anything? I asked for 'relevant' points Si Ester and this doesn't appear to be one. The Falkland islands were not possessed by Spain in 1536, so your point is what ?
“ .. the constitution in Argentina,even gives them a political representation,full citizenship,the can get pension,study for free,up to the University level,no body is segregating them...”
You trying to say that Argentina's possession is in the islander's interests ?? LOL
“ ... Argentina does not want a monarch 14,000km away to decide in our vital space...”
WE are not IN your vital space ...WE occupy our own space .... DO YOU NOT GET THAT ??
MoreCrap - you are quite right, the Spanish conquistadors were gentle, kind and angelic :-)
It is VERY tedious trying to debate with morons!
157 Marcos Alejandro
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Great Britain does not need history as an argument. Possesion is 99% of any land dispute.
Take a look at the map of Argentina 1881: upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4f/Mapa_ARGENTINA_1881.png
Before the genocide in 1878-79 Argentina's southermost tip was at Viedma.
As for “avowedly racist despotism built on ethnic cleansing, enslavement, continual wars and savage repression, land theft and merciless exploitation.” - learn from your own history - “Apropiación de la tierra a los aborígenes y genocidios en el Río de la Plata”. Read 158 St.John.
“Millones de hectáreas se sumaron así a la República Argentina. Estas enormes extensiones fueron adjudicadas a bajo precio, o directamente regaladas, a terratenientes y políticos influyentes.”
There were no indigenous people on the Falkland Islands
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only people who come close are the present day Islanders
Just because Argentina and Chile are close neighbours, doesn't confer ownership.
Otherwise Japan belongs to China, New Zealand belongs to Australia and dare I say it the UK belongs to France/Belgium/Holland - Absolute nonsense.
If implanted Spanish settlers can usurp the rights of the indigenous people that they slaughtered/enslaved and are truly representative of the wishes and aspirations of all Argentinians then the Falkland Islanders can easily claim to be truly representative of the social and historic racial mix that makes up the Falkland Islands.
Self determination for the Islanders is the only way forward. Its a moral argument based on seriously held principle not the bluff and bluster displayed by Queen Kirchner and her family of assorted royal rogues.
I see Soldado Estevez has once again avoided answering my question in #105...
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 08:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'll ask it again:
Do you agree that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination or do you agree that the treatment of the Chagossians was correct?
Answer the question above Soldado Estevez. Please.
Oh, and for every bit you copy and paste about Ifni, I can give you one about Kosovo. What's more for territorial integrity to function I would have thought that you need to prove that the Falklands were Argentine territory first. I think you might struggle a little...
l see the Argentines have sunk to a new low of discussion. truely their intelligence is very low. lts hardly worthwhile speaking to them. Just remember this amigoes, the Falklands belong to us and you'll NEVER get your greasy thieving hands on them.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0its special case.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0britain is not innocently occupying illegally the isles, claiming a huge portion of antartida for their sustaintable future, having a strategical place to control SA, but are also continuing stealing our maritime territory wich since 1982 has increased.
arg sovereignity and resources are in risk with uk here, and that affects all the region.
this people knows how to steal and we and all south america must be on alert of british empire and their tricks.
and this pasquin is so probritish and pro uruguayan with anonimous writers maybe you are paying them
Show me where it says 'special case' !
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British have been in the south Atlantic longer than Argentina has existed .... we do not steal, we own ... get used to it!
“claiming a huge portion of antartida”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 11:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Argentina has no Antarctic claim? Isn't that a bit hypocritical?
I don't see you complaining about the French, Norwegian, Australian, New Zealander and Chileno claims. Why do you only have a problem with the British claim?
you have been here longer than argentina existed more than 6000 years we and you
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina struggles to claim 200 years !
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'll ask it again:
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 12:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you agree that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination or do you agree that the treatment of the Chagossians was correct.
Obviously,the answer is there.uk think that is correct,Since the chagosian got a ruling,from the higuest court of the uk,that they have the rigth to come back to their homeland,and the brits did not implement such ruling,obviously,they do not give a damn about the law.
Has regarding to the Malvinenses,no in this special case,since the original population was expelled.
This is reflected in the UN ruling.Also the recognition of the SA countries to the sovereign rigth of Argentina.Sorry,but this reality http://articles.cnn.com/2010-02-23/world/falklands.argentina_1_falkland-islands-malvinas-islands-argentina?_s=PM:WORLD
Argentine claims on Antartica,rely on the same principle has Australia,New Zealand and chile,which is the projection of the continent on Antartica.
UK can claim,unclaimed part of Antartica,which is much larger than what uk is claiming rigth now.UK is stepping over the claims of Argentina and Chile.Anyway,there is little you can do,without the support from the continent,so either way if uk wants to develop the resources,will need Argentina and Chile has a partner
Lady bug,RED The British have been in the south Atlantic longer than Argentina has existed .... we do not steal, we own ... get used to it!
AHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAA.So good for selfdetermination.We have been longer and we are much more than the brits.You do not owned,so get use to that.I do not recognize brit autorithy in the South Atlantic,neither the SA nations....
The South Atlantic for the people who live there.
Anyway,uk can not do anything without the infrastructure support from the continent.Get use to that...
NO special case ... NO expulsion of the population...... Argentine LIES. NO UN ruling, Diplomatic support ONLY amongst SA nations. Argentina has NO claim to Antartica. WE were there first!
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 01:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We were there FIRST, Si-Ester ... you have NOTHING!
I'll ask it again:
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why do you need to keep asking? our position is very clear on the Chagossians. There isn't one British person here that i know of who agrees with that happened to them. We've said this countless times.
“This is reflected in the UN ruling.Also the recognition of the SA countries to the sovereign rigth of Argentina.Sorry,but this reality ”
So what you're saying is that if 32 nations say something's a fact, that makes it one? Incorrect.
We don't care what SA nations say or think. We know our citizens are entitled to human rights. Nothing you can do to take that away from them, you tried and failed miserably.
“there is little you can do,without the support from the continent,so either way if uk wants to develop the resources,will need Argentina and Chile has a partner”
You state this a couple times and it is not true.
How come the border between Paraguay and Argentina is so close to Asunción and Encarnación?
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How did Argentina get possession of provincia Formosa, and Misiones from Posadas to Puerto Iguazú?
When will those territories be returned to Paraguay?
Possession is 99% in disputes over land.
Finally, Soldado Estevez answers the question. In a roundabout way. You appear to believe the Chagossians have the right to self determination. Which means that you are obliged to accept that the Falkland Islanders also have the right to self determination.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please stop repeating the usual Argentine government lies.
- There is no special situation which denies the Falkland Islanders self determination. This is a universal right. There is absolutely nothing in any UN ruling to deny this right.
- The Falkland Islands never had a native or original people. And if you refer to those persons associated with Vernet's second venture, it is a FACT that most of them chose to remain in the Falklands after January 1833. There are Falkland Islanders today who descend from those people.
What about the Norwegian and French claims? What is the “principle of projection”. I have never heard of it. Perhaps you could elaborate?
MercoPress “Falklands Fact”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British government spend millions to keep a base, hundreds of soldiers to “defend” a small British Village (against penguins) in South America, and in the Argentinian coast.
At the same time their police are facing major cuts.
“The home secretary, Theresa May, has set the stage for a potential spending cuts clash with the police, telling them cuts in their pay and conditions are an unavoidable alternative to thousands more police job losses.
She told the 140,000-strong police service in England and Wales the ”extraordinary circumstances“ generated by the record budget deficit meant she was unable to exempt officers from cuts in their pay and conditions.”
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/mar/02/theresa-may-police-pay-cuts
I'm not really sure what point you're trying to make Marcos? The Falklands garrison costs less than 0.5% of the UK defence budget. That's not likely to change and the garrison is not going anywhere soon...
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”(against penguins)”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Against Argentina. We made the mistake of not having an adequate garrison on the islands once, out government won't make the same mistake twice.
169 Tte Estevez
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'The South Atlantic for the people who live there'
That might be the first sensible thing you've said. I live here and it's for me, and my family and community. Definitely not for you.
“UK can't afford the Falklands”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 06:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11999601
Marcos - none- NONE- of the links you post have any relevance- they are all irrelevant - ALL British Govt departments have known for many months that they have to gear for Budget cuts between 10-20% over the next 4 yeasr! They ALL knew it months ago! It is NOT really news!
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 08:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the cost of Falklands Defence - Even if UK witthdrew totally it would not make £1 avaialable for other departments in UK - UK would not be reducing its military further - those that come here are an integral part of the slimmed down defence budget- if not here they would simply be in Uk or elsewhere - in uniform still.
If you want to be taken at all seriously on here - stop posting irrelevant drivel - sadly lots of UK reporters are just as scatterbrained as Argentine ones!
Preston himself said it's never going to happen.
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He was well off on his “facts” too.
Tte Estevez
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 09:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'The South Atlantic for the people who live there'
That might be the first sensible thing you've said. I live here and it's for me, and my family and community. Definitely not for you.And Argentina and the 350 miles is not for you either.So we should kick out the MAlvinenses that came to Argentina/
Pathetic monty,pathetic your position.
The squid dependes mostly from the growth on Argentine sea. You should know that.If we decide to push it,so you and your family will get little of that fish,your income will drop,which would be totally fair.
Everything for me and my family,nothing for you or the rest of the Malvinenses!! Fair enough?
Port Egmont on Saunders Island in the Falkland Islands. Here in January 1765 Captain John Byron claimed the Falklands for Britain. The picture shows the ruins of the warehouse and dock (1766).
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Getting it right: the real history of the Falklands/Malvinas
The claim to the Falkland Islands is now a significant element in Argentine foreign policy, though as we shall demonstrate below, there have been long periods when Argentine governments accepted that the islands were British. since 1964 the annual Argentine statements of the claim at the United Nations have been much more extensive.
However, those statements, like Argentine books, leaflets, and letters to British MPs, contain many important omissions and some extremely serious historical errors.
http://www.falklandshistory.org/?q=node/1
In the first place, the claim to the Falklands inserted in Argentina’s 1994 Constitution does breach UN Resolution 31/49 of 1976. It was a unilateral act performed 18 years after the passing of the UN Resolution (no previous Argentine Constitution mentioned the Falklands). The EU treaties do not breach it; they simply list all EU overseas territories, and Britain’s overseas territories were listed from 1973, three years before 31/49. Those treaties have been widely misunderstood in Argentina; and even the Lisbon Treaty does not set that list of territories in stone. Argentina’s constitution, however, does just that. It now requires any negotiations over the Falklands to end in total British capitulation; there is no other possible outcome. No arbitration is possible now either, since Argentina could not accept a result that went against its constitution. UN Resolution 31/49 was intended to promote a negotiated solution, but Argentina’s constitutional claim prevents that. As I said, it is a breach of that Resolution.
http://www.falklandshistory.org/?q=node/1
“Pathetic monty,pathetic your position.”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think so Soldado Estevez. Most Falkland Islanders have been there for 7,8 or even 9 generations. Most Argentines 3 or maybe 4. The Falkland Islands are for the people who live there! Get over it!
“So we should kick out the MAlvinenses that came to Argentina/”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You tried in 1982, remember? You failed miserably.
Pathetic monty,pathetic your position.”
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think so Soldado Estevez. Most Falkland Islanders have been there for 7,8 or even 9 generations. Most Argentines 3 or maybe 4. The Falkland Islands are for the people who live there! Get over it
There are,Malvinenses,coming to Argentina,some for tourism,some to settle and buy property,which is not restricted to the Malvinenses in Argentina.Moreover,the Squid,which is the cash fish the Malvinenses have,depend of a cycle that start in the Argentine sea,This squid grows,in a CCW cycle,and touches the malvinas sea.If Argentina,decidas to cartch all of it,there will be very little left for them,which is totally fair,since everything is for us,according with the brilliant deduction of monty.If Argentina decided not to push that action,was for consideration to them,since they do not appreciate it,we can called that good will action off.So to say,Argentina has the paddle by the hands.
You are, not only ignorant,no wonder why these clowns of SALT &PEPPER are considered God by you,but really a REAL PINOCCHIO!
So Argentina is trying to be understanding of them,no recognition,NO problem! We left them with little fish and problem solved.So you pay them!!
No good neighbour anymore!
The squid dependes mostly from the growth on Argentine sea
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 10:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you now claim the sea as well ??
What abouth the ships on the sea, ??
181 Tte Estevez
Mar 02nd, 2011 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'The squid dependes mostly from the growth on Argentine sea. You should know that.If we decide to push it,so you and your family will get little of that fish,your income will drop,which would be totally fair'
You know what, that is exactly what I would expect you to say. Your lot are always on here piously wittering on about Falkland Islanders overfishing and the need to conserve fish stocks.
So I like it when someone like you comes on telling it like it is, and admitting that you would wreck the fishery out of pure spite. You'd ruin it for yourselves just to get at us, and that's my definition of pathetic.
What a feeble bunch you are.
Talk about a deft change of subject. First it was South Atlantic was for the people who live there and when it was pointed out to Soldado Estevez that the Falkland Islanders do in fact live there the “repost” is along the lines of well we're going to take all the squid and leave you with nothing.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 12:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Very strange “thought processes” the RGs have...
Argentina is IN South America which BORDERS the south Atlantic. The Falkland Islands are IN the south Atlantic which includes many other BRITISH Overseas Territies.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 01:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina is IN South America which BORDERS the south Atlantic. The Falkland Islands are IN the south Atlantic which includes many other BRITISH Overseas Territies.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 01:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The usual stupidity from Ladybug.
I do not care about the brits in the South Atlantic,and start making the idea,YOU ARE GONNERS!!
You know what, that is exactly what I would expect you to say. Your lot are always on here piously wittering on about Falkland Islanders overfishing and the need to conserve fish stocks.
So I like it when someone like you comes on telling it like it is, and admitting that you would wreck the fishery out of pure spite. You'd ruin it for yourselves just to get at us, and that's my definition of pathetic.
What a feeble bunch you are.
Again it shows that the Malvinenses want to play the “persecuted,poor guys by the evil Argentiines”,Cut the crap. Argentina as allways treated you well.Do not remember the fligth,you have to come to study,to our hospital for free??How many of you very leaving very poorly and came to buy land(which you coul not,prior to 1982)?Did we segregated you? No,so it is nice to play the beggers so we can get some money...
Now if you think we treat you unfairly,ok,we can play tougth.Everything for you,fine,and everything for me,poor guys,mistreated by the BOOGY man of the other side....whats happens? what wrong to think first on us?I do not care the rest,that if what all the ”victimized Malvinenses wants to play.....
SiEster - but we haven't gone, nor will we ....................... and no, it doesn't appear that you can act tough.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 01:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0An example of British commitment -
”“ ... The most generous per capita aid is reserved for the Overseas Territories, a collection of former colonies, mostly small islands such as the Falklands and Virgin Islands. They ....... will receive an average of more than £80m a year in aid....”
www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/progress-on-reform-made-a-condition-of-aid-increase-2230543.html
SiEster - but we haven't gone, nor will we ....................... and no, it doesn't appear that you can act tough.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0An example of British commitment -
”“ ... The most generous per capita aid is reserved for the Overseas Territories, a collection of former colonies, mostly small islands such as the Falklands and Virgin Islands. They ....... will receive an average of more than £80m a year in aid....”
That nice ladybug!!
So you will have to work harder to give to those poor LADS the money.
And you will have to work even harder,so your granson,will be able to be debt free,in order to pay the 8.9 trillion dollar foreign debt..
Congratulation Mother theresa of RED HOYT!!!
“Argentina as allways treated you well”
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0And yet they want nothing to do with you. Clearly not well enough.
“Malvinenses want to play the “persecuted,poor guys by the evil Argentiines””
You say this while in the same post you go on about overfishing the area so they have nothing to live on...Lmao. What an idiot.
@ It's a pity. Well we're not going anywhere.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 03:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would like to know more about the people of the islands. But it seems that this is not the place. Maybe a little afraid to meet people. (From all of us).
When dialogue? When we play football? When enjoying the cuisine of Monty? When looking into the eyes of Isolde?
Maybe I'm a bit philosopher in the day end.
I go to sleep. Red, enjoy your tea.
Thank you, I did ... the variety was English Breakfast of course :-)
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 05:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0A bit too slick and microscopic.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 07:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0If this thesis is so strong, then why is not not taken seriously enough for the UN to dismis the Argentine claim outright. (for the last 20 to 30 years)
Never mind an upside now, so
Time to consider an honourable settlement.
we have an honourable settlement, Graham and it suits us fine. We don't care if you like it or not as its got nothing to do with you.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 08:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0good morning to you, Tte Estevez. please stop posting silly spiteful rubbish. listen to Monty, she is making sense.
An honourable settlement would be self determination. Anything less would be a “peace in our time” appeasement.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for the UN, when did this respected World forum last make a clear decision on anything and follow it through?
Gosh, the way Soldado Estevez goes on you'd think Argentina has done the Falkland Islanders some massive favours.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 09:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0- Since 1982 they're allowed to invest in Argentina (like that is some kind of advantage?). Argentina certainly needs investment from whatever source!
- The flights (which were not free), “free” hospital and education, not to mention the YPF monopoly in the Falklands. (Soldado Estevez forgets that Argentina offered these all in 1976 as some bizarre kind of “sweetner” before taking the Falklands over. Strangely all this “kindness” did not work and the Islanders rightly said NO! And look what they got. An armed invasion.
Graham,
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 10:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Do you understand how the UN works?
The UN does not dismiss claims, in any dispute it will not comment on the merits of any case, merely ask that both parties settle the dispute.
The only UN body that could pronounce a defintive verdict would be the International Court of Justice. However, for a case to be lodged Argentina would have to agree to submit to arbitration. Something it will be extremly unlikely to do.
In 1955, the UK unilaterally referred the dispute over the Falkland Islands dependencies to the ICJ. The ICJ declined acceptance following Argentina's refusal to accept the court's judgement.
An honourable settlement? Well Graham, Argentina will accept nothing less than the UK capitulating to its demands, ignoring the clearly delineated wishes of the islanders and basically having its cake and eating it. Where is the room for an “honourable settlement”.
Sorry, I got the year wrong in #199. It was 1971 for the Comms agreement and 1974 for the YPF monopoly... Why allowing flights to a neighbouring country is such a favour I just don't understand. It happens in most other places in the world as a normal thing.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 11:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0An 'honourable' settlement was achieved in 1833 .... nuff said!
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 12:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A bit too slick” - Impressive and difficult to challenge piece of research
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 12:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“and Microscopic” - Detailed
So we have - “Detailed, impressive and difficult to challenge piece of research”
Tend to agree.
190 Tte Estevez
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Again it shows that the Malvinenses want to play the “persecuted,poor guys by the evil Argentiines”,Cut the crap. Argentina as allways treated you well.Do not remember the fligth,you have to come to study,to our hospital for free??How many of you very leaving very poorly and came to buy land(which you coul not,prior to 1982)?Did we segregated you? No,so it is nice to play the beggers so we can get some money...”
Are you for real????
I was replying to a post of yours in whichyou said you wanted to persecute us by destroying our fishery. Didn't you say that?
As for 'Argentina has always treated you well'....are you insane? Does the point where your people invaded our country and held our children at gunpoint escape your memory?
Have you forgotten all the other crap you've been pulling on us ever since? Banning charter flights...remember that?Disrupting shipping? I could carry on but can't be bothered.
You haven't treated us well. You have behaved like the disgraceful bullying cowards that you are.
your boss ,, said that Argentina was also now following “international models,” referring to the steps taken worldwide to protect human rights.
Mar 03rd, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Does this mean that she will acknowledge the rights of the Falkland islands to be independent and free from threats , harm or interference from Argentina
As for 'Argentina has always treated you well'....are you insane? Does the point where your people invaded our country and held our children at gunpoint escape your memory?
Mar 04th, 2011 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Monti,you are a real lier!
uk invaded Argentina,kicked out our people,banned Argentina to exercise any use for the island,and you said we invaded your country? What about my country?
If we treat you like that is because of your actions,not ours! You know that Argentinians were willing to pay for the land in Malvinas,never were given permision.Is that fair? You Malvinenses can come and buy properties,fligth into Argentina,even wave your flag,and nobody forces you to put it down.We are fed up of your 'victimize” attitute.We never bug you,we never were allow to even come close to your place.You can come any time to argentina,and nobody discrimiinate you.So you want a one sided way? Fine you got it.We are FEED UP of that Malvinenses attitude!
The Argentine soldiers treated the Malvinenses,much better than the treatment,british soldiers treated other countries,do not forget it!!
''As for 'Argentina has always treated you well'....are you insane? Does the point where your people invaded our country and held our children at gunpoint escape your memory?
Mar 04th, 2011 - 05:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0Monti,you are a real lier!''
Are you saying you didn't? Who's the liar??
The rest of your post is nonsense. I couldn't give a stuff about your country. I don't want to go there, I don't want to wave my flag there, I don't want to buy land and I couldn't care less if you discriminate against us or not, because I don't plan ever to be there.
You can get close to our place. Just remember to get your passport stamped and leave within 3 weeks.
@206 Tte Estevez, you are the biggest liar on this foreum. either that or you are just plain stupid.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0We don't want anything to do with your corrupt,slum-ridden,broken country & don't care what you think.
l, also do not want to go to your country. And l do not want you to come here. l don't know all government policy but l tell you l would not allow Argentine settlers in the Falklands either. How stupid do you think we are? Allow you to pour in, then outvote us & “request”Argentina to take over. Would not that be your plan?
We are also fed-up with your attitude, you invaded us, we did not invade you. And Mr Liar, you did shove guns at children. But of course, l forgot, you are all heroes. Like that superhero Astiz, who loved“killing young girls but surrended quick smart and lively when he faced real soldiers”.
And that, my friend,comes from the poor women of your own country.
-The mothers of the disappeared.
You will NEVER get our country. Got it?
206 Tte Estevez, you are the biggest liar on this foreum. either that or you are just plain stupid.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0We don't want anything to do with your corrupt,slum-ridden,broken country & don't care what you think.
Yes monty and isolde? You did not invade us? Who were in Malvinas before the brits came?They were Spanish and Argentinian,is not that the truth?
You both are a bunch of liars!
Anyway the fish is all for us!!
Tell lady red to work harder to pay for the expenses.
Do you think I am interested in those wind swep forgotten island?
By the way Argentina is Muuuuuch better than the uk.....
uk is FINISH!!!!
“Who were in Malvinas before the brits came?”
Mar 04th, 2011 - 12:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A bunch of convicted pirates who were murdering the local citizens. This is whom your claim is based upon.
Then you guys have to cheek to call us “pirats”.
bunch of convicted pirates who were murdering the local citizens. This is whom your claim is based upon.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then you guys have to cheek to call us “pirats'
Really? Instead the brits were“gentlemans” that never killed or supressed the freedom of anyone.......
Really pathetic,comparing any wrong doing of the Argentines,with the wrongdoing of the brits througout history.....
Any of the “heroes” the brits have,like Sir cecil rhodes,were far worse than Astiz....
Anyone defending the “modus operandi” of the brits has civilized, is a real liar!!
“Who were in Malvinas before the brits came?They were Spanish and Argentinian,is not that the truth?”
Mar 04th, 2011 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well let's forget that there was a British settlement in the Falklands long before the “Argentinians” went there. Before Argentina even existed.
And let's also not forget that Argentina is not Spain, so Argentina cannot claim any benefit or rights via Spanish residents in the Falklands.
The “Argentinians” you speak of were members of Vernet's settlement - which had BRITISH PERMISSION. This is an undeniable FACT.
If you mean the garrison from Buenos Aires (because at that moment, let's not forget that Buenos Aires Province was at war with the rest of the United Provinces) sent in late 1832, that garrison was correctly PROTESTED by Britain and asked to leave. When it did not leave as asked, Britain sent HMS Clio to make sure that they did.
211
Mar 04th, 2011 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem anti British.
Why is that then?
“Any of the “heroes” the brits have,like Sir cecil rhodes,were far worse than Astiz...”
Mar 04th, 2011 - 01:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well let's not even bring up Argentine “national heros” like Roca and the unspeakable things they did to the Native South Americans - the real owners of Argentina...
You seem anti British.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why is that then?
No I am not!
The brits screwed up in the empire,not me!
That is history,it is not my making.
King Roberts Pinocchio: Roca.... do you know the history of Roca? He was much better than Cecil Rhodes,and the drug traffickers you had in you empire.
But,like I said,there is always a god,so the uk was punished in WWI ,WWII and the incoming WWWIII,which really will be far worse than the 2 previous.
Conclusion: Argentina is far better off to stay neutral and not beign part of any scheme of power.No NATO,NO warsaw Pact or any other.
When hell is going to get loose,we will be the winners.
Sorry for your future brits PALS
Tte Estevez...
Mar 04th, 2011 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You leave me completely speechless. I have never come across a series of posts from one individual who is so contradictory, so deluded, so ignorant and so far from the truth, I actually feel for you. You make me sad.
She condemns others for her own inadequacies, for only the people who run the asylum can be blamed for the destruction created and done by the inmates, so basically , you reap what you sow, that why Argentina has nothing to be proud of except theft and false claims on others, might I suggest you dump your history books and buy new ones, similar to the ones the rest of the world uses would help, for if you act like children, you must be treated like children mmmm
Mar 04th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“do you know the history of Roca? He was much better than Cecil Rhodes”
Mar 04th, 2011 - 02:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yup, Roca was much better at wiping out the “Pueblos Originarios” than Cecil Rhodes. There are hardly any left in Argentina, whereas in Africa it is a very different story...
“Argentina is far better off to stay neutral”
You are pretty ignorant Soldado Estevez. No wonder you have never been commissioned as an officer.
The UK entered WWI because of guarantees the UK had given to it's allies. Promises. I guess you Argies aren't too hot on promises eh? No wonder you remain neutral. It's easier not to make promises that you can't keep, and you Argies have a long history of not keeping your promises...
As for WWII, once again the UK entered that (after trying very hard not to be involved) because of a promise to an ally. Poland. And anyway, after waiting right until the end of WWII, when the wind was definitely blowing in the direction of the Allies - Argentina decided to join the war. It's a FACT. Argentina was a belligerent in WWII. So Argentina is not so neutral afterall, although I'm sure you have some lame excuse for that...
215
Mar 04th, 2011 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hmm after that tirade, I think that confirms you are!
Are all Argentinians like you?
As for WWII, once again the UK entered that (after trying very hard not to be involved) because of a promise to an ally. Poland. And anyway, after waiting right until the end of WWII, when the wind was definitely blowing in the direction of the Allies - Argentina decided to join the war. It's a FACT. Argentina was a belligerent in WWII. So Argentina is not so neutral afterall, although I'm sure you have some lame excuse for that...
Mar 04th, 2011 - 04:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously you are the one that not understand a thing... For the uk,was totally advantegeous that Argentina plays the neutral..In that way we can feed the allies with corneed beef and other stuff...
Argentina had about 5000 volunteers joining the uk.The RAF had an entire squadron,the 164 Argentine british squadron...
http://www.historyofwar.org/air/units/RAF/164_wwII.html
Be serious......you are really out..........
You leave me completely speechless. I have never come across a series of posts from one individual who is so contradictory, so deluded, so ignorant and so far from the truth, I actually feel for you. You make me sad.
Really? You have the problem living in that trouble and complicated area...not us......
Do you think,honestly that the world is going well?
If you think that,I am honestly sorry about you...
We sold the family home in Europe in 1995......
If you think everything is good out there...go head,make my day.I honestly do nto think so.
By the way,you really think the brits they were all Saints and good hearted people?
An advice: Read the bible,once in a while,specially the apocalypse...
I am really speechless about you pro-brit people,really sorry about you...
Regards
Oh dear Estevez, you have once again (and always) completely missed the point. I feel sad because you believe Argentina is the innocent victim in all of this and you are so far gone you can't even realise the tripe you are spouting.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am having no problems living in this so-called trouble/complicated (as you put it) area...why is it troubled and complicated? Is it because Argentina is trying to destroy the Falklands economy? If it is, then the completely innocent Argentina, as you have stated, are not innocent whatsoever.
The Brits are not Saints, but the Argentines are worse. You want to colonise us, kick us out of our home so you can gain land you have never owned, Estevez, have you ever been to the Falklands? I bet you havent, you are so entrenched in the Argentine fantasy, you wouldnt know reality if it hit you right inbetween eyes.
Why do you believe that I think the world is “going well”? Where have I alluded to this?
All that I meant by my post is that you have absolutely no idea what really is going on. You have been filled with so many lies, you just cannot not see reality. And I know you response will be “you cant see the reality”, but self-determination is a very real thing, and we are exercising it, so get used to it.
220 Well TTe Estevez, my old fruit, its clear you'll never be lonely because as they say “you're never alone with schizophrenia”.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 06:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You really are strange Soldado Estevez. One minute you are boasting about how wonderful it is that Argentina is neutral, the next minute when it's pointed out to you that this is not true, that Argentina did actually enter WWII on the side of the Allies, you start with the lame excuses. It's not your fault... The Allies put you up to it so that they could eat Fray Bentos... I knew you would come up with some lame excuse. I even said you would...
Mar 04th, 2011 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well, you weren't exactly giving away that corned beef were you? I'm sure you were selling some to Germany too. You were “neutral” afterall...
And those volunteers were almost 100% Anglo-Argentines. At least they had some moral courage, unlike your government of the time - waiting as it did until the war was won before declaring its hand!
The Royal Air Force roll of honour for the Battle of Britain recognises 595 non-British pilots (out of 2,936) as flying at least one authorised operational sortie with an eligible unit of the RAF or Fleet Air Arm between 10 July and 31 October 1940.[86][87] These included 145 Poles, 127 New Zealanders, 112 Canadians, 88 Czechoslovaks, 32 Australians, 28 Belgians, 25 South Africans, 13 French, 10 Irish, 7 Americans, and one each from Jamaica, the British Mandate of Palestine, and Southern Rhodesia.[88]
Mar 04th, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry but i cant see argentina ?
While you are slobbering over here...UK is even smashed !!
Mar 04th, 2011 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0look at map
http://www.economist.com/node/18284049?story_id=18284049
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Argentina
Mar 04th, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was a 164 Squadron, full off Anglo-Argentine volunteers. During most of WW2 Argentina was notionally neutral, though favoured the axis powers. There was some surprise the Graf Spee went into Montevideo as Buenos Aires was perceived more likely.
I don't believe 164 flew in the Battle of Britain as it wasn't formed till 1942. Tte Estevez also failed to mention that few of the volunteers talked about their experiences in Argentina after the war, as they were intimidated by the pro-Nazi atmosphere in Peron's Argentina.
We should rightly salute the bravery of those who made a perilous wartime voyage to Europe to fight for democratic freedoms against a fascist oppressor. A pity they did not receive those same freedoms on their return to the mother country.
Argentina's late entry into the was was a fairly cynical ploy to gain advantage at the proposal for the formation of the United Nations. If thats a “lame exuse” forgive me for reporting history.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Participants_in_World_War_II#Argentina
Another ignorant statement by Pinocchio justin:Argentina's late entry into the was was a fairly cynical ploy to gain advantage at the proposal for the formation of the United Nations. If thats a “lame exuse” forgive me for reporting history.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 09:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“A third hypotesis attributes the neutral policy to the British intentions to keep Argentina out of Amercian sphere of influence.As is well known,Argentina had such close economics links with Great Brittain,since the 19 century,that she was sometimes called the “sixth dominion”. Argentina’s traditional policies was to oppose the Pan –American movement which migth hurt Anglo-Argentine relations.Moreover Anglo-Argentinian relations were strengthtened in the 1930 and 1940 Because of the Roca-Runciman pact of 1933.So we can suppose that Argentina adopted a neutral policy,in order to check Pan-Americanism and maintain traditional ties with Great Brittain”
http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Periodicals/De/pdf/73_03_04.pdf
The british investiment,which were very large,at that time on Argentina,was very convenient, in having a neutral policy.
Transporting the goods,on neutral flagged ships,will shield them from attack by U-boats.
Not only was vital,to feed many people in Europe,but also means good bussiness for the British corporation running,a miriad of Bussines in Argentina: Meat packing(Swift,Armour,etc),Railroads,banking,insurance. Bank of London and mercantile, etc
Bancos de Londres y Mercantil 1.600.000
Ferrocarriles 6.609.750
Cía. de Tranvías de Buenos Aires 800.000
Cía. de Telégrafo del Río de la Plata 150.000
Gas Mutual de Buenos Aires 200.000
Fábrica de Carne Liebig y Bolicua 560.000
Minas de San Juan
http://www.ide.go.jp/English/Publish/Periodicals/De/pdf/73_03_04.pdf
justin,I do nto understan those links....What are the points...
Regards
What is your point about posting a link concerning 19th Century history.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/6/6-106.htm
The investment by the British and the prosperity enjoyed in Argentina as a result is well known.
http://www.ucema.edu.ar/ceieg/arg-rree/6/6-106.htm
Did you actually read that paper? It certainly doesn't rebut any point I made.
is this still going on??
Mar 04th, 2011 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina's late entry into the was was a fairly cynical ploy to gain advantage at the proposal for the formation of the United Nations. If thats a “lame exuse” forgive me for reporting history.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin: I have read 2 times over the paper,I see no hint about “a cynical ploy...”
It only shows,the neutrality,was good for the UK.
So we can infer,that that was the foreign policy preferred by the UK.
Is that was cynical,well It was coming from the UK...
The other references are only a short illustration on the importance of British investment in Argentina,hardly,neutrality was an Argentine policy..
Regards
Transporting the goods,on neutral flagged ships,will shield them from attack...
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Works both ways. Are you denying that there were ships sailing from BsAs to Hamburg or occupied France?
Your neutrality might have been good for the UK, but that argument works for any of the belligerents - on both sides. Given that you only declared war on the side of the Allies because you wanted to eat at the UN high table, and given that you gave Nazis succour after the war I think we all know which side you really were on... Neutral schmeutral!
200 - Thanks Justin. You are correct. I do not know how UN works, and I am not a fan of it. The only book I have read on their operations entitled “Lords of Poverty” sums it up.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Neverthless, if a commitee of the UN can decide on evidence presented that their is a claim to a Malvinsa, then surely the same committe can consider the evidenve presented in the article above and decide that their is in fact no claim.
My point is that their will still be evidence of a claim. The doubts are not new.
Talking about an honourable settlement seems reasonable to me.
@ 212 Roberts, Arrived illegally. In Secret. The French arrived before. Transfirieron the title of first occupancy to Spain. They left. Truth?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0BRITISH PERMISSION??? 60 years of permission for other countries to exert sovereignty?? please, Roberts.
The Argentina inherited the territories that had belonged to Spain. Therefore Malvinas inherited.
Just as other Latin American countries, inherited the territories that had belonged to Spain.
Just as the United States inherited the former British colonies.
We were there, and not followed diplomatic channels if considered with an entitlement. Remember that arrived late, they retreated, and were never alone in the islands.
The C-24 is largely discredited due to the bias of latin countries on said committee. In any case they are not there to considser the merits of any territorial claims. They are only there to lead Non-Self Governing Territories towards independence. They have no other remit.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only place where Argentina's spurious claims could be considered is the International Court of Justice. Argentina has distanced itself from that court and whilst Argentina could take the UK to it, we cannot take them.
Honourable = 1833
@ The 2 countries have to agree to take the case. But UK does not speak.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dishonorable = 1833
“The Argentina inherited the territories that had belonged to Spain. Therefore Malvinas inherited.”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0When spain recognised you as a state. the islands were no longer Spains for you to inherit.
@236 zethe, If did it. Argentina inherited rights and obligations retroactive to 1810.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Marvin, the British arrived quite legally. Spain and Portugal may have believed that they'd carved up the New World for themselves, but Britain didn't recognise your Papl Bulls or Treaties.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0When the British left in 1774 they left the necessary marks and signs to show that we maintained our sovereignty claim. After 1771 Spain was there under British sufference.
Uti Oissedetis Juris was not proclaimed in South America until the 1840's and Spain did not recognise argentina's independence till 1850. The Falkland islands were not Spain's to give.
But finally, quite right - Spain arrived late, retreated and, with all the British whalers and sealers, were never alone on the islands.
You know too little Marvin :-)
Works both ways. Are you denying that there were ships sailing from BsAs to Hamburg or occupied France?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your neutrality might have been good for the UK, but that argument works for any of the belligerents - on both sides. Given that you only declared war on the side of the Allies because you wanted to eat at the UN high table, and given that you gave Nazis succour after the war I think we all know which side you really were on... Neutral schmeutral.
The nazi,was a more complex scheme.In reality,the US was interested that the nazi scapes from Germany,mainly to take the Gold,so the russian,do not put the hands on them,so really that idea does not work.On the other hands many nazi went to the USA,specially scientist,so USA has many nazis has well.
Well Roberts: Like I said,many of the corporations were british stakeholders,and the distribution was done by English corporations,so they will be finally the end sellers .But certainly,I have read before,the british corporations,were the main pushers of these neutrality criteria,as the document I have posted up,shows
Regards
Red, Not maintain their claim because since they left fell silent. Why?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0If did it. Argentina inherited rights and obligations retroactive to 1810.
British Whalers and sealers not grant rights, Red
Uti Possedetis Juris retrospective? Only if you have possession Marvin, and you didn't.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for silence, the islands were still being administered .... which is why Vernett sought permission from the British! If the islands were Argentine, why would he do that?
British people using British Islands, Marvin ..... the Spanish never attempted to prevent those whalers and sealers staying on the islands, not did they try to tax them .... speaks volumes :-)
Uti Oissedetis Juris was not proclaimed in South America until the 1840's and Spain did not recognise argentina's independence till 1850. The Falkland islands were not Spain's to give.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHA LIAR!!!!
“Spain appointed a succession of thirty-two governors in the Malvinas Islands up to 1811, when the garrison at Puerto Soledad was summoned to Montevideo to defend the the Spanish monarchy at the beginning of the Wars of Independence. In the framework of this conflict, the first governors of the United Provinces of the Río de la Plata included the Malvinas in different administrative acts, considering them an integral part of their territory inherited from Spain by the succession of States in accordance with the uti possidetis juris of 1810. ”
Lowell Gustafson,International Law
http://books.google.ca/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=the+sovereignty+dispute+over+the+falkland+malvinas+islands+gustafson&source=bl&ots=sVvldkAeQs&sig=TV-LQlNCpig1MEd-f0qCEd434lI&hl=en&ei=YqNxTZD0D4L-8Abm66HzDg&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uti&f=false
LIAR,lady bugred
YOU KNOW NOTHING!
Red; Red, Of course, when Spain's recognition of our independence, the islands were not in our possession.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0But because it usurped the islands. And that you know very well.
This does not mean that Argentina did not inherit the islands.
In addition, the islands were under our control when England recognized our independence.
“As for silence, the islands were still being administered” Incredible....
“whalers and sealers staying on the islands” not grant rights” Incredible...
Vernet meet Argentine law. To the point that it led and took us to perdition with the captures of American ships that destroyed whales and seals.
“ ... This does not mean that Argentina did not inherit the islands....”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0But it does Marvin, it does :-)
“ ... In addition, the islands were under our control when England recognized our independence....”
Not actually relevant, but the British recignised Argentina's existence in 1825. What 'control' did Argfentina have over the islands? When Vernett went he had to seek British permission.
BRITISH whalers and sealers Marvin .... that's the important bit. And yes, we were continuing to use the islands as BRITISH territory. Not 'incredible' but a fact that works against your spurious claims.
Vernett had British permission to form a settlement. He went further and took actions against the US that he did not have permission for. As a direct result the US took action against the 'pirates' and the British went to reassert local authority. Vernett should have stuck within the limits of his proper permission.
In many ways you have a lot to thank Vernett for lol :-)))
@215 Tte Estevez
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Short poem from Cecil Rhodes(slightly modified!).
“When all is said and done,
We have got
These fair isles
And you have not!”
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
you've lost it my friend, so sorry for you.
Malvinense 1833 #233
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, Vernet sought British permission for his land grant in the Falkland Islands. That is a recorded fact.
The South American provinces took their independence by force, not by agreement so they inherited nothing from Spain. No rights and no obligations. Just like the 13 British colonies in North America took their independence by force. The USA inherited nothing from Britain. And don't forget, not all of British North America decided to become independent at that time: Bermuda, Newfoundland, Rupert's Land, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island all remained loyal. Does the USA have Canada or Bermuda today? No, because it did not inherit anything from Britain.
Just to show how absurd the notion is that Argentina inherited anything from Spain, Just ask the question: What exactly was it that Argentina inherited? Where do you draw the line? Was it just the Spanish province of BsAs? Was it all of the former Viceroyalty of the River Plate? Or was it all of Spanish South America? If it was the Province of BsAs then that would not make sense, if it was the Viceroyalty of the River Plate that didn't work out because there are parts of it which Argentina did not manage to “inherit”, like Paraguay, Uruguay and parts of Bolivia, equally Argentina does not sit on all of the former South American colonies... So inherited what exactly? It's just shows how absurd the notion is that Argentina inherited anything and that you have not thought it through to its logical conclusion.
#245 ! Isolde
Mar 05th, 2011 - 10:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0#225 the Economist's map very interesting !...real ?
I have to have a copy of Gustafson, he is incorrect referring to Utis Possidetis Juris in 1810. It didn't exist at the time
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Utis Possidetis Juris was established at the conference of Lima in 1848. It was an agreement between Latin American states that were formerly part of the Portuguese and Spanish empires, which set their boundaries according to the delineation of their respective empires.
As other countries, for example Britain, were not signatories to that agreement, then they cannot be held to it.
I think you'll find that Gustafson studied at the University of Buenos Aires, in many respects its a good piece of work but incorrect in a number of areas of International Law. Probably because of where he studied.
@244 Red, Tell Pepper showing where Vernet requested permission from the British. What were the British law that he obeyed.?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Whalers and sealers do not give sovereignty.
Pirates? Captain of the ship Germantown Lynch's considered pirates:
Inddead... I had determined that if he did not disclaim his act and make reparation, to seize him as a PIRATE (Rennie) and either bring him to you, or send him to the United States ti be disposed of
@ 244, Roberts ”So inherited what exactly? Viceroyalty of the River Plate .
With regard to divisions of Paraguay (1811), of Upper Peru (1825) and the Banda Oriental (1828), are removable from a central authority, just as are the Irish Republic and other former colonies that comprise the Commonwealth with respect to Britain. If Argentina's position is invalidated by the division of Paraguay, in a similar manner will invalidate the British for Irish independence in the 20s and the dismemberment of the British Empire, as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland there is technically no longer as 170 years ago. The following considerations:
the three provinces of Upper Peru signed the independence as part of the United Provinces in the Congress of Tucumán, the same legal affect the Banda Oriental and the secession of this area occurs as a result of British policy by Lord Ponsonby of creating a “buffer state ”in order that the Rio de la Plata is international. However, the principle remains Uti possidetis while Argentina (or United Provinces) is the historical and legal continuity of the Viceroyalty of River Plate.
” ... Vernet must have known about the British claim to the Falkland Islands. He submitted his land grant to the British Consulate in Buenos Aires, where Vice-Consul Charles Griffiths countersigned it on 30 January 1828; whether Vernet saw the British Minister, Woodbine Parish, at that time is uncertain.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Vernet certainly met Parish a year later, since Argentine newspaper reports in March 1829 revealed that a presidio (a penal settlement and frontier garrison) was to be set up in the Falklands. This alerted the British Embassy to the fact that Argentina had official designs on the Falklands – it would not just be a
private venture involving s laughtering cattle, like Vernet’s current venture dating from 1826. Parish asked to see Vernet and, on 25 April 1829, sent a despatch to the British Foreign Secretary, Lord Aberdeen, reporting his conversation with Vernet – Parish said: He would, I believe, be very happy if His Majesty’s Government would take his settlement under their protection: – He sails for the Falklands with his family in about a month, and intends to pass he says some years there in promoting the objects of this colony. Vernet gave Parish a copy of his grants and a description of the people at his settlement at that time (April 1829), which Parish sent to Aberdeen as well.2 On the basis of these despatches, the British Foreign Office instructed Parish to protest at this infringement of British sovereignty.3 This was before the British
government knew of any formal Argentine claim to the Falklands.... '
” 1 Vernet to Aberdeen, “Dispatch 24”, in PRO FO 6 499, p. 4. Also quoted (in Spanish) in Caillet-Bois 1952, pp. 305.
2 Vernet said there were 10 white inhabitants from Buenos Aires, 10 seafaring men, mostly English and Americans, Vernet’s brother and brother-in-law, 18 Negroes indentured for 10 years and 12 Negro g irls – 52 people in all. ..”
Check out Pascoe & Pepper Marvin, you may learn something.
Whalers and sealers can indeed show continuity.
Red, View Caillet-Bois. The whole book. Pepper, cites only a small paragraph and hides the rest. Whalers and sealers do not give sovereignty.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 05:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Whalers and sealers do not give sovereignty.”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats funny, because Argentina's entire claim to South Georgia is based upon a small group of whalers who had british permission to work there.
One of the main source of Vernet's income was seal hunting. He seized Harriet so that he could conserve the seal population for his own needs as he had been granted a monopoly on it.
I'll post this here as well:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Lowell Gustafson is quite simply wrong on inheritance. Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its territories in the Americas until 1836. I suggest you take a look at the treaty of recognition between Spain and Argentina which says in Article 1:
.. and exercising the powers which she possesses in accordance with the Decree of the General Cortes of the Kingdom of the 4th of December 1836 renounces in every form and for ever for herself and her successors the sovereignty rights and actions which belonged to her over the territory of the said Republic
The significance of the Decree of 4th of December 1836 is that the Spanish constitution of 1812 had forbidden the Spanish monarch to relinquish any territory. Through that Decree the General Cortes enabled the monarch to override the Constitution and thus recognise the independence of the American republics, the first being Mexico in December 1836. When Spain recognised Argentina in 1859 (without Buenos Aires) and in 1863 (with Buenos Aires) no cession of the Falklands took place for the simple reason that Spain was no longer in the position to cede them. A state cannot cede territory it does not possess.
Gustafson is also wrong on uti possidetis. There was an uti possidetis principle at the time, but it was not uti possidetis juris. Uti possidetis at the time meant that after a conflict each part in the dispute got to keep the territories it held unless their status was determined otherwise in a treaty. There was no uti possidetis juris in international law until well into the 20th century. For the first half of the 19th century it was not even a regional South American law since there was no formal agreement on borders until the Congress of Lima 1848. Argentina was not one of the countries that attended that Congress. You can read about the evolution of uti possidetis juris here:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.paulhensel.org/Research/iowa06.pdf
From page 8 of the pdfand particularly from Norm Emergence from page 10.
Note also that not a single South American country has the same borders as its colonial predecessor. It’s a effing cheek to insist that the UK complies with uti possidetis juris when none of the South American countries has done so.
He is also wrong on terra nullius. A territory is terra nullius if it has no sovereign. For a territory that has a sovereign to become terra nullius, it not only has to be abandoned, it also has to be relinquished. And Spain had not relinquished the Falklands or any part of Argentina itself for that matter by 1836.
He is also wrong on the question of the purchase from France as he is implying that Spain recognised a prior French sovereignty which it bought from France, when in fact France declared its settlement illegitimate and recognised a prior Spanish sovereignty. Spain’s claim to prior sovereignty had no validity whatsoever, but France by declaring its settlement invalid lost any rights as first settlers. Those rights by default passed to the British.
dab14763
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You beat me to it, that was the same paper I was about to post a link to.
Buy this book to read. It is in English. Not only is there the view of Pepper. http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=81002661
Mar 05th, 2011 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now I have a party. Bye.
I already own a copy, clever guy.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I read a range of opinions and form my own, I don't select my reading on the basis of agreeing with the author.
Marvin - What is Pascoe & Pepper hiding that is relevant to vernett seeking British permission?
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0#249 So what you are in effect saying is that parts of the former Viceroyalty were legally divisible, in other words, Argentina did not inherit the former Viceroyalty. So the question still remains. What exactly did Argentina inherit?
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your points regarding Ireland and the British Empire are nothing more than a red herring. Irish independence was negotiated and agreed. The UK granted Ireland independence. Likewise for all the former colonies. It was not a unilateral action on the part of Ireland or the former colonies as it was for all of South America. Ireland and all former British colonies had British recognition from day 1. Spain did not recognise the South American republics until many years after independence. Two completely different situations.
Argentina inherited a 'bad attitude' ... the similarities between Argentina/Falklands and Spain/Gibraltar are rather obvious ...... not good LOSERS!
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:46 am - 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!