MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Argentina waging a ‘vicious war’ against the Falkland Islands
Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly member Bill Luxton aimed a fierce broadside against Argentine government propaganda and pressure on the Falklands. He was supported by several colleagues from the Legislative Assembly. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesYou BET YOUR ASS WE ARE
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0now if only your politicians would be as honest as you, instead of just looking immensely dim and mad as box of badgers.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only thing vicious about Argentina is the diarrhea caused by drinking the tap water.
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh good ... looks like the islanders are planning an invasion :-)
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Although their government seems to have given up murdering its own people for the time being, it is still conducting a vicious war with the Falklands on the economic and political front,”
Mar 04th, 2011 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What the hell??
No other way to discredit Argentina's claim than to go back in time thirty years?
That's what PROPAGANDA is you stupid Kelper.
Argentina is not waging a war against “The Falklands”, Argentina is waging a war against the UK, a country that has been involved in plundering since the beginning of time... using slavery to sustain it. Don't try and portray yourselves as the poor little victims.
MALVINAS belong to Argentina, and you have NO RIGHTS, none.
Time to consider an honourable settlement.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0“MLA Short added: “A good deal of what is happening must stay out of the public’s gaze for some time yet, and some of it may never see the light of day..”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0My answer: HAHAHAHAHAJAJAJAJAJA
Too bad, I'd love to see what the hell he's talking about.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martian - the UK has the right because the Falkland Islands have NEVER belonged to Argentina. You are also showing your youth, as I've said before, 30 years is all to short a time!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Graham, sorry to repeat myself but the the honourable settlement was achieved in 1833.
MoreCrap - afraid of the islander's fighting back.?
As for the news article above, it appears to be have been drawn from a longer meeting-
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5894&source=3
http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=5894&source=3
“While it was apparent some form of action was being planned by LA members.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0However, MLA Ross’s statement gave some clues: “There are many issues being worked on, and it is a little frustrating that we are unable to say too much about them at this time.”
What are they going to do? Send to us naked pictures of Prince Charles and Tony Blair? HAHAHA
Martin
“30 years is all to short a time”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know, nothing compared to the centuries of plundering and slavery on behalf of the UK.
Afraid of the islanders?? LOL
If this clown Luxton is the best the UK's got, I'm genuinely terrified. ;-)
Your senile dementia isn't exactly working in your favor, Redhot
9 Redhoyt , Very interesting article you posted above about these clowns meeting in Malvinas!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The Hon Mr Dick Sawle:
Mr Speaker, I was delighted to learn the other week from the Honourable Gavin Short that the Falkland Islands has apparently the highest market penetration of Facebook of any country. And here, whether you like it or not, they estimate 71% penetration of the market, which is massive compared to other countries.”
HAHAHAHAHA
not sure how slavery come into this...but...it was a mistake, all modern countries at that time did it, it was even started by the africans themselves. We gave it up before the Argies, plus i dont hear much about the butchering of the native south american indians by the Spanish which you Argies somtimes claim heritage to if it suits your purpose.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“There are many issues being worked on, and it is a little frustrating that we are unable to say too much about them at this time.”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0awwww… sad, here's a Tony Blair bear for you, got to bed and f--k yourself while you're at it.
And you wonder why your own soldiers called you “Bennies”.
You are one sad angry young lady martin
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Angry? I'm laughing my ass off with this article.
Come on Benny, give us a preview... what are you gonna hit us with?
13 Y Draig Goch, About slavery, we didn't enslaved and send three million Africans across the Atlantic.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0He hasn't seen 'Amazing Grace' ;-)
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quite right MoreCrap - the Sapnish were never involved in slavery and those conquistadoes were merely misunderstood lol
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Graham, sorry to repeat myself but the the honourable settlement was achieved in 1833.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another stupidity,emanating from a the corrupt and bankrupt uk!!!
Comong from lady bug red,is reashuring...
AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
The only thing vicious about Argentina is the diarrhea caused by drinking the tap water. Another show of ignorance coming from corned beef.......
Argentina,probably has some of the best drinking water in the planet......
AHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
They are going to figth ......with a pile of debt bond from the uk.................................AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
Getting frustrated Si Ester ?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm still waiting for the previews.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Terrified.
: P
So come on then, slavery and outright butchery of the locals didnt happen with your people then? and remember seniorita Fierro, the africans were the ones to sell slaves in the first place, an empire hungry for labour is doubtless going to accept it as did many nations.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0So i see Argentineans like to ally themselves with Spanish ancestry when it suits them, but when somthing negative...and there is a LOT of negative with the Spaniards of that time...you soon distance yourselves.
The Africans started it, right, they started slavery to sell slaves to themselves. The Africans started it and the UK LOVED IT, to death, literally.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0That's right clown I'm not from Spain, I'm from Argentina, the country that fought Spain for its independence.
Still waiting for the previews, clown.
They sold them all over africa and then the world you moron, try reading some history.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well if you're Argentinean today, you're claim the Islands is therefore defunct, no inherited spanish territories for you, Islands all ours, :)
No, Y Draig. They only want something to do with spain if it benefits them. They don't want to be associated when it's something not so good.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0I know, i said that lol
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0But, what about the previews?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0LOL
“Many things are happening in the Falkland Islands?
Like what? Are you turning bottled sheep's fart into guided missiles?
Why all the suspense?
Getting frustrated Si Ester ?,Not really,lady bugRED,I am enjoying tremendously this “debate” with liars and ignorants!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Regards!
'Debate' - Si ester? To debate you need to know something, and your understanding of both the true history and the legal position of the Falkland Islands appears deficient. Go away and get an education and then come back, with facts not fiction.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands have been British since 1690 ...... haven't you noticed ?
“Many things are happening in the Falkland Islands”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 05:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The suspense continues.
This article should be called SILENCE OF THE LAMBS
Well, the sheep actually : P
“...and it is a little frustrating that we are unable to say too much about them at this time”
awwww..
lol
Martin you really should work on your english and check what vicious means... if you were a dog we would have you shot......
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Slavery? Very much an african/arab thing.... they were still into it 50 or so years ago..
Be a good chap... get a life ... get a brain.... .
If I was a penguin you would starve me to death too.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are clearly superior, I'm impressed.
Martin... meet Think...
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Think ...meet Martin.....
I think everyone knows about the penguins, Frank
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Common knowledge
At least you recognise that we are superior ... maybe you are learning something after all!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Absolutely, you sit on a pedestal of enlightenment.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0haha
Are these personal insults the best you Argentines can come up with?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0You have no cojones, you seem to be keyboard warriors. You are liars as well.
These are the reasons that you will NEVER get the Falklands.
You failed in 1833.
You failed in 1982.
Please come again so you can fail again.
l will never try to reason with you as you are an unreasonable people.
lnstead l will just oppose you with every fibre of my being.
l hope we never meet. Chin chin
Lighten up moron.. it's the weekend, go shear a sheep or something
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0No sense of humor
Good to see that the argentine posters on here are keeping their comments at the usual low standards they are famed for,their insults smack of impotence and desperation all that is missing is pirates,putos etc
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Mar 05th, 2011 - 10:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Feeling the heat:
Subsidized shipping running out in June 2011:
“Hon. Glenn Ross
I continue to be content with our support of shipping links with Latin America.
Our exposure as a Government was for a fixed amount of money over a finite period of time.
When the money runs out in June the present arrangement at that point come to an end.”
Preparing the Island’s public for “bad news” on the oil exploration front:
“Hon. Gavin Short
Alas, though, a good deal of what is happening must stay out of the public’s gaze for some time yet and some of it may never see the light of day.
But you can be sure that there are great efforts afoot to try and assure that our country has the tools to continue on its path of economic expansion.”
Some are, indeed, living in the wrong place:
“Hon. Jan Cheek
We’ve become a little accustomed to sensational headlines but I think last week’s on the alleged difficulty in getting food into the Islands was probably a record.
I don’t know how others around this table feel but I think a few are not prepared for perhaps a little hardship and the occasional results of isolation and are probably living in the wrong place.”
Counterattacking with words :-)
”I think it worth mentioning that the 2nd of April as well as being the anniversary of when those nasty people took our country and liberty away from us all those years ago.”
“We do at times like to play the defenceless victim. I think it is a time to be bold and assertive.”
”Although their government seems to have given up murdering its own people for the time being.”
“I look forward to the time when we are no longer held to ransom by the illogical, irresponsible and downright absurd tactics of unfriendly nations.”
“There are many issues being worked on, and it is a little frustrating that we are unable to say too much about them at this time.”
TWIMC
Mar 05th, 2011 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Too much heat in the Falkland islands .. now I don't believe that for a start off!
41 Think,
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0What goes around comes around, or did the Brits think none of this was their fault.
Fierro is a typical loser - reduced to making abusive and personal insults.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0You idiots may be able to inconvenience us but as someone else said - you lost in 1833 and you lost big style in 1982 - why dont you join the real world and accept the inevitable?
We are here to stay!
@40
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talking about low standarts.
You don't seem to be contributing much around here.
Typical keyboard bully.
Do yourself a favor and sod off!!
Some voices from UK talking about Malvinas and UK:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://leninology.blogspot.com/2011/03/falklands-factor.html
@45 Everyone can contribute as little or as much as they wish,show me where I have bullied anyone
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Every time Fierro opens his/her mouth - or keyboard!- the venom spews forth and he/she reveals just a bit more of his/her pathetic self.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is a good ole British saying that goes...“ when you are in a hole it pays to stop digging”
Kelper? No, i'm from Argentina.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I was just stopping by Mercopress, as usual. Joining the flamefest, just for a few laughs.
(38) Isolde
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your post No. 38 is a good example of Islanders dishonesty.
Seems to be “Standard Government Issue” in Malvinas.
Have seen it being used several times by other kelpers.
You start by complaining about Argie insults:
”Are these personal insults the best you Argentines can come up with?”
But, immediately you start insulting yourself:
”You have no cojones”
”l will never try to reason with you as you are an unreasonable people.”
”You are liars as well.
Then, you finish with that little ”Coup de grâce”:
”You failed in 1982.”………”Please come again so you can fail again.”
Totally disrespecting the death of both sides and showing the world how much you wish and need another armed conflict (as long as the English and the Argies provide the cannon fodder and you Islanders reap the economical benefits………….)
“Although their government seems to have given up murdering its own people for the time being, it is still conducting a vicious war with the Falklands on the economic and political front,”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What the hell??
No other way to discredit Argentina's claim than to go back in time thirty years?
That's what PROPAGANDA is you stupid Kelper.
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Talk about shooting your self in the foot!!
Thiry years???? You people are going back to 1833 - with a pack of lies of course!
As I said else where in that speech - so what? Its irrelevant. Possession is 9 points of the law as they say. Have a look around the rest of the world as well as South America. Anyone who even considers taking the borders of countries back to that date is a nut case.
Get used to it and lets go forward from that point - we are here to stay!
My family are relative newcomers - great grandfather was a Marine in one of the early garrisons and was de-mobbed in 1864 and stayed here. Other familes have been here much longer!
'Debate' - Si ester? To debate you need to know something, and your understanding of both the true history and the legal position of the Falkland Islands appears deficient. Go away and get an education and then come back, with facts not fiction.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 01:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This applies to you,Lady bug RED.You are a liar and ignorant,I mean debate with some members,no with you
(52) Bill Luxton
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to attach a paramount importance to the ancestry argument.
Correct me if I’m wrong…….. As far as I am informed, about 15% of the current population of Malvinas can trace their “Island” origin 6 or more generations back in time…..(That gives ~ 400 people)
Very nice but………………..
In your narrow-minded, haughty and ethnocentric little world you forget to take in consideration that more than 15% (That gives ~ 6.000.000 people) of the Argentine population can trace their “South American” roots to 1810 or even further back
If you, Kelpers, have any serious ambition to “Stay Here” as you put it, it would be a good idea that you realized the fact that you are in South-America and South-America is not accepting your “Britain By Proxi” project.
Get used to it.
OK OK Who let the dogs out,
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0gentlemen , puppies are but puppies they like playing and biting your ankles, but they are just being friendly .
they have no one else to play with, so they want to play with you,
they have not yet been trained yet in the ways of humans,
they still spread false hope and urinate up the proverbial wall,
so please don’t be so hard on them, they will learn in time , that if they want to play with the big boys they must learn to grow up.
they no not what they do or say, so ignore them and they will go away.
[mustapha laugh] 1982. and [mustapanother laugh 1833 ]
The fact that most us take no more than 4 generations living here, in my case i am the third generation of argentines in my family, does not mean that all of us have less rights on our country, than the rights that the islanders have on the islands, who take even 8 generations living there, the final words of mr luxton are the most stupid and irrellevant that i could read from a member of the l. c.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Accepted or not, our rights are as legitimate as yours, and as long as you reject to negotiate a pacefull solution with my contry, like argue all the resolutions from the u. n., dont complain if take hard decitions against your side, dont keep on using galtieri to reject a solution with my country.
Mr luxton is only saying what the population from the islands wants to heard, but what is really pathetic, is the fact that most you think that only our side omit information respecting the history of the islands, in order to adoctrinate all of us since we are children, to believe that the islands belong to argentina, if you think that your side does not do the same, that shows how mediocre your thought is, like us or not, the history will always be submitted to omitions or distortions, in all the countries, this is why it's so important to investigate, beside, the history is always wrote by the side that wins.
I will always respect the dignity and the thought of the population from the islands, but some day, they will have to understand that our rights are not less legitimate than theirs, meantime you are responsable for your own intransigence, the u. n. never affirmed that the u.k. should transfer the islands to argentina, it has only always called both sides to negotiate a pacefull solution, which means that both parts will have to cede on their pretentions, like us or not, that's what a negotiation is about.
So mr luxton, be serious, and dont blame only our side for the actual scenario, you know perfectly that we wont never drop on our claim.
Nasty indoctrinated Argentinian people have no respect for democratic and freedom loving Falkland Islanders.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UK Government will never negotiate sovereignty, the door is locked.
Self determination is the only key that fits the lock.
6 Graham “Time to consider an honourable settlement.”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Might be. If the Argentines had any honour. They don't.
Let us not forget that their Spanish predecessors “invented” the concentration camp. In Cuba. That the old time Spanish and most Argentines are well known for murder, rape, invasion and so forth. Were they invited to the territory currently called Argentina? No. They invaded. How do we describe the “Conquest of the Desert”? Murder? Invasion? Genocide? Whatever it was, it was planned. And of course, invading troops have to have a little light relief. Then, of course, there's present-day Argentina's sneaky invasion of the Falklands. That they carried on with despite a UN Security Council resolution telling them to withdraw. Lots of those invaders still around in Argentina. Although I gather they like to call themselves “veterans”. Veterans of what? An ability to pull their helmets down round their ears? And it must not be forgotten that, if the Falklands invasion had gone well, Chilean Patagonia was next on the list. And the streets were filled with cheering, celebrating people. Including “children”. So many of them are still there.
Honourable settlement? Yes, one day there will be an honourable settlement. The day the Falklands decides to become an independent nation. But still with a useful defence treaty.
I wonder if Argentina will ever grow up?
Perhaps the Argentinean people are not aware exactly what democracy really is, in one form or another, there are two sides to everything, and what one side claims the other side will have exactly the same argument in reverse, if you have rights, then they have rights, if you have a claim on the Falklands, then the Falklands will have equal claim on Argentina
Mar 05th, 2011 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,
You cannot have it both ways, [3] countries 3 referendums,
if the British people vote to be ruled by the British people, does Argentina or the Falklands have a problem with this [answer no] if the Argentinean people vote to be rules by Argentina does the British and Falklands have a problem with this, [answer no] THIS IS CALLED DEMOCRACY,
if the Falklands vote to be ruled be the British , do the British or Argentineans have a problem with this, [British no [democracy]
Argentina does have a problem with this ,[dictatorship]
why does Argentina have a problem but the other two does not,
the reason is simple, Argentina does not recognise the rights of the Falklands , or the rights of free people to make there own decision,
so back to the beginning ,, where then lies the problem, the obstacles to freedom, not the British,, not the Falklands, again only Argentina.
,
Only she can bring an end to this problem , not the rest of the world, or the man upstairs, just Argentina, its always Argentina, and only Argentina can end this problem, that gentlemen is the disease and the cure, just an opinion mmmmmm
Let us not forget that their Spanish predecessors “invented” the concentration camp. In Cuba. That the old time Spanish and
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The earliest of these camps may have been those set up in the United States for Cherokee and other Native Americans in the 1830s;
The English term “concentration camp” grew in prominence during the Second Boer War (1899–1902), when they were operated by the British in South Africa.[5][6]
There were a total of 45 tented camps built for Boer internees and 64 for black Africans. Of the 28,000 Boer men captured as prisoners of war, 25,630 were sent overseas. The vast majority of Boers remaining in the local camps were women and children.
That the old time Spanish and most Argentines are well known for murder, rape, invasion and so forth.
LIAR:Between 24 million and 29 million Indians, maybe more, died in famines in the era of British good governance. Many of these famines were policy-driven
Late Victorian Holocausts
Cannon fodder
Yes, there’s that, too. British good governance killed more than those tens of millions in famines. Countless numbers of Indians died in wars waged for, by, and against the British. Over 8,000 died in the single battle around Kut in Iraq in 1916.
http://lilarajiva.wordpress.com/2007/07/29/that-good-old-british-empire/
There is no Honor in the british. I have never heard any “mea culpa” of the british murderers.
Although I gather they like to call themselves “veterans
You cheerish the veterans,more than the Argentines...You cherish all the killing of the empire,You are a beast,LIAR,typhoon of hypocresy.
You are fond of the millions the brits killed in the empire....
There is no honour in the british.That is the reason 50% of the world hates them..
Chilean Patagonia? Is pretty small compared with the Argentine Patagonia...
But justice will prevails,and those millions will haunt you to take with them in their graves.uk has no future...
PAthetic...
Axel, you come out with the same cra*p every time you appear. We do not have to negotiate, we have history, international law, and indeed possession on our side! We do not accept your rights as legitimate and believe that we can prove otherwise! The UN has turned out to be irrelevant!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think - the Falkland Islanders are NOT in South America, they are in the south Atlantic ... and they are British. Get used to it :-)
“Let us not forget that their Spanish predecessors “invented” the concentration camp.”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't say they invented the idea. The termanology is Spanish but the use of camps goes back many years as far back as B.C. i read a lot about camps the Egyptians used to put there slaves in were could be described as concentration camps and there were recordings of the Romans doing it. The USA used them before Spain did and Russia before the US and even the French.
However, it is a misconception that concentration camps were all like the ones of Nazi Germany. Most of the camps used in the past were not death camps like we read about in WW2 they were often just large makeshift prisons to deny the rebelion more troops or to hold slaves in.
It's also a misconception that the British invented them(Most people seem to believe this).
You know, its so funny when they think they have the right to self determination, when self-determination is not possible because the people who lives there are descendents from british that were put in there AFTER argentinians colonies in malvinas islands, so they invaded it, you cant invaded one country expelled the people from there and put your own people in there and ask for right about self determination, because in that case UK can invaded almost all the world expelling the people from everywhere putting their own people and ask for self determination too, i mean self-determination after an invasion is colonialism, i really cant understand how the british thinks they are too smart and they cant realized what invasion means. Besides Briton, how can you say we dont know about democracy when you still have a queen, your queen delivered the control of UK to their parlament but she is still being your Queen so if she wants she take back the control making to UK in a monarchy and you talk to us about Democracy?? are you serious?? your country says that the islanders are in the malvinas since before argentina was free, really?? because Argentina gets free in 1816 and the malvinas islands were invaded by british in 1833 so do you know maths?? and UK recognize our control in malvinas because they recognize that malvinas belongs to spain before so by independence we are the owners and UK ask for permission to free sealing in malvinas area, why did they ask for permission if they always said that islands were from UK?? BESIDES UK put Malvians Islands as a colony in the descolonization committee, so they recognize that islands as a colony and now they say otherwise?? even you dont believes all that lies from UK
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's also a misconception that the British invented them(Most people seem to believe this).
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quite true,but the brits coined the term Concentration camps.
The term Concentration camp was first used by the British in the Boer wars
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Who_invented_concentration_camps#ixzz1FjzHfwq1
60 Tte Estevez:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you should do a little more research before you talk.
”The English term “concentration camp” grew in prominence during the Second Boer War (1899–1902)”
Indeed it did, it was a translation from the spanish term reconcentration camp(reconcentrados) used a few years earlier in Cuba.
But yes. If your argument is that English speaking people invented English words, you are correct.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ExQuinox - you have a lot to learn about 'self determination. I suggest you start with the UN and the great God Wiki, because you'll be torn to pieces here with your schoolboy reckoning! the islands were British long before Argentina was bvorn (1690) and the brainwashing you have had from your government ill equips you for this site!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wiki, because you'll be torn to pieces here with your schoolboy reckoning! the islands were British long before Argentina was bvorn (1690) and the brainwashing you have had from your government ill equips you for this site!
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Another lie.
Get some good documents of international law,t and history that says otherwise.
Your word means NOTHING!!!
That is only wishfull thinking,lady bug RED!
“Argentina has a superior historical right because either it inherited Spain's
sovereignty over the islands under the principle of uti possidetis--by which
newly independent Latin American nations claimed to replace former Spanish
administrative boundaries with national ones--or it established its own title to
islands that had been res nullius, or no one's property. Spain had legal title to
the islands because it purchased the first colony, which had been founded by
the French, and maintained it until 1811. Britain founded a colony on the
islands after the French but abandoned it in 1774. The British left a plaque
affirming their intention of maintaining legal title, but made no objections for
almost sixty years when Spain and then Argentina publicly claimed sover-
eignty over the entire set of islands. When Argentina formally declared its
independence in 1816, the Spanish colony had been evacuated for a few years.
Since no other nation had claimed or inhabited the islands, Argentina took
possession of them either as part of the viceroyalty of Buenos Aires or as
islands that were not legally claimed by anyone. Although the United States
declared the islands res nullius in 1831, Argentina disputed this and acted as if
it had maintained sovereignty over the islands. So when Britain invaded the
small Argentine colony in 1833, it did so with a poorly founded claim to the
islands.”
Lowell Gustafson:
http://www.questia.com/PM.qst?a=o&d=65216969
PAthetic!!
Really Pathetic!!
“you cant invaded one country expelled the people from there and put your own people in there and ask for right about self determination”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's exactly what you did in Argentina. Killed the pueblos originarios and now claim self determination.
“can you say we dont know about democracy when you still have a queen”
We have a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is purely ceremonial. And yes, we have a far longer history of democracy than you. Since 1810 I doubt Argentina has had more than 40 years of democratic rule in total. You have mostly been ruled by caudillos and dictators.
By the way, the British Queen cannot take back control from the Parliament. That is total nonsense!
“so by independence we are the owners”
No, you inherited nothing from Spain. No rights and no obligations. Nothing. The provinces which eventually came to form Argentina took their independence and whatever territory they could by force. Not by agreement.
“UK ask for permission to free sealing in malvinas area”
Can you show some evidence of this? I doubt it. The UK never asked Argentina for permission for anything at all in relation to the Falklands.
“BESIDES UK put Malvians Islands as a colony in the descolonization committee, so they recognize that islands as a colony and now they say otherwise??”
And Argentina protested this!!! And it's not true that the UK says otherwise. The Falklands are free to take full independence at any time. They choose not to, and it is the UK's international duty to respect that until the Falkland Islanders decide otherwise. Argentina should respect that too, being a signatory to the UN Charter, but it does not...
The Hon Mr Gavin Short:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You know, in spite of Argentinas never-ending attempts to blockade us and strangle our economic growth; in spite of us getting a side-swipe from a recession which did have an impact upon us; in spite of pressures that are yet to come from Central Government on our own pockets from the rise in fuel prices that will eventually impact upon us and even in spite of my rather gloomy predictions that this year is going to be a TOUGH one with the dreaded neighbours coming at us with everything that they can politically speaking ”
Feeling the pressure?
MLA Short added: “A good deal of what is happening must stay out of the public’s gaze for some time yet, and some of it may never see the light of day, but you can be assured there are great efforts afoot to try and ensure that our country has the tools to continue on its path of economic expansion.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vkw2DdoskPY
We have a constitutional monarchy. The monarch is purely ceremonial. And yes, we have a far longer history of democracy than you. Since 1810 I doubt Argentina has had more than 40 years of democratic rule in total. You have mostly been ruled by caudillos and dictators.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We have much more than 40 years of democracy. The first disruption came in the 1930.Otherwise was very democratic
Which speaks very bad of the british people,.Since all country agrees with the killing by the empire.
Martin Fierro,
Mar 05th, 2011 - 04:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please answer these questions carefully:
What action has Argentina taken against the UK and its people?
We are only aware of economic and communications interference policies Argentina has aimed the the Islands and the people who live here- not UK.
Whay does someone born in the Islands who can trace their ancestors back say 8 generations born in the Islands have NO rights at all.
Yet someone born in Argentina whose ancestors were part of the society that waged war against and exterminated the native indigenous population of the pampas and patagonia, the rightfull owners of all those lands - have “Rights”?
72 Islander1 “Whay does someone born in the Islands who can trace their ancestors back say 8 generations”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 05:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Like your Government officials?
H. E. the Governor Mr Nigel Haywood
Born in the Surrey farming village of Betchworth, England.
Chief Executive
Timothy “Tim” Rupert Thorogood
Thorogood was born in Barbados.
Legislative Assembly
The Honourable Keith Biles JP
Speaker of the Legislative Assembly
Keith Biles was a member of the overseas staff of a major international British bank for 25 years, living and working in many parts of the world. He arrived in the Falkland Islands in 1995 to take up the appointment as manager of the local branch of the bank.
Hon. Roger Edwards
Roger Edwards was born in 1946 in Brinkworth, North Wiltshire, UK. He was educated at Brinkworth Primary and Malmesbury Grammar School.
Hon. Emma Edwards
Emma was born in 1971 in Portsmouth, England and is the eldest daughter of Norma and Roger Edwards.
Hon. Dick Sawle
Dick Sawle was born in Sheffield in the UK in 1954. He was educated in Lancashire at Rossall School, and post A levels studied Spanish, South American Studies and Egyptology at Liverpool University
Good to see so many Brits deciding to emigrate to the Falklands Islands. I can see many more leaving these shores to join the thriving Falkland Islands community.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 073 Marcos Alejandro
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course everyone noticed how Marcos did not answer Islander’s question re self determination but came up with an irrelevancy about the origin of some people involved in Falkland Islands government
68 Tte Estevez
Lowell 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 co
countries that attended that Congress. You can read about the evolution of uti possidetis juris here:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:52 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.
nearly time for the puppies to go to bed,
Mar 05th, 2011 - 06:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so finnish of nipping will you,
they run out of steam very quickly
10 min;s please
Martin- you both failed to answer my questions and in what you did say you are somewhat incorrect. Who cares where Govt Officials are born? All we care about is that they are good at the job - otherwise we kick them out ( yes we can even make London withdraw a Governor) - simple FACT - NONE of them have a vote in our Govt! The ONLY people who can vote in Govt are the ELECTED Councillors - its a funny thing called Democracy.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the bithplace of some elected Councillors - well they were elected by us - we care what they say and stand for - not just where they were born! Nobody can decide where they are born - but in a democracy people are free to LIVE where they choose.
So cut the crap and answer my questions please?
J.A Roberts: “That's exactly what you did in Argentina. Killed the pueblos originarios and now claim self determination”.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0First of all the spanish kill the native people not us, before argentina there WASN'T any country in there, and then we get free BUT in malvinas there was a country Argentina, with his own colony, so read i tell you this again take a book and read because you are saying words without meaning.
“No, you inherited nothing from Spain. No rights and no obligations. Nothing. The provinces which eventually came to form Argentina took their independence and whatever territory they could by force. Not by agreement.
dont we inherited nothing from Spain, jesus crist are you really saying that?? HAHA
”Can you show some evidence of this? I doubt it. The UK never asked Argentina for permission for anything at all in relation to the Falklands.
I suggest you to take a book of history because you seems to be jsut a little kid without any knowing.
“And Argentina protested this!!! And it's not true that the UK says otherwise. The Falklands are free to take full independence at any time. They choose not to, and it is the UK's international duty to respect that until the Falkland Islanders decide otherwise. Argentina should respect that too, being a signatory to the UN Charter, but it does not...
Why dont UK sit and talk with argentina respecting the UN organization, UK refuse to obey the UN Statement, Thats the international responsability your monarchy has?? Wow you are doing a great job, a lot of countries since YEARS told UK to negotiate with argentina but UK refused, where is your responsability?? if you think you are right why almost all the world told to UK to Give the malvinas islands back, As segurity council member UK should be the example of obey the UN staetment, but you dont soo who did you say is the ”bully“ or ”lier” now??
Here we go, a some nice examples of how Argentine school children are indoctrinated:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhCnR7y_Jo&feature=related
My favourite quote at 7:33 “Las Malvinas son Argentinas porque estan cerca de Argentina...”. Amusing. There are a lot of other places much closer to Argentina, which Argentina does not claim. Oh, and Rodolfo Terragno seems to have conveniently forgotten about FI Status. All Falkland Islanders are British citizens, but not all British citizens have Falkland Island Status. Which pretty much leaves his argument dead in the water (not to mention the fact that British citizens need a permit to live in the Falklands if they don't Status).
If you haven't vomited a bit in your mouth by now, there's more here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhCnR7y_Jo&feature=related
Colouring in Argie flags over their Falklands maps - because they can. And at 7:13 “yo creo que hay muchos arboles”... If it wasn't so sad, kids being brainwashed, it would be hilarious.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhCnR7y_Jo&feature=related
Seguimos ganando... (in some other dimension perhaps?)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1ZhCnR7y_Jo&feature=related
Argentina Law Firms
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Qui Tam False Claims Act Attorneys Argentina by City
Often used again the Falklands,
Argentina's claim to the Antarctic Peninsula overlaps with the Antarctic claims of Chile, 53°W to 90°W, and the UK claims, 20°W to 80°W, and is not recognized by most other countries, even themselves 1954 article 5.
[Argentina claims against America]
Since June 2005, a story has developed claiming that the United States plans to establish a military base in Paraguay. This claim has been reported by Argentina,
[Nestor Kirchner im innocent]
Nestor Kirchner became President of Argentina in 2003. For example, flights between Argentina and the islands have been stopped. Kirchner, supported by Hugo Chavez (President of Venezuela), demanded that Britain return the islands. Many British commentators think that Kirchner adopted his tough stance to gain domestic political support. Some understanding of the islands’ history is important in this debate. The islands first appear on European maps in the early-sixteenth century. This suggests that Spanish explorers may have spotted them. John Strong, an Englishman, is the first European known to have actually landed, in 1690
News completed for Global Debates.
Debate: UN convention on the rights of Falkland Islands
Argentina’s allegations are unproven in an international tribunal Unless Argentina's allegations are proven in an international Court the Islanders cannot be subject to any sanctions of any kind regardless. Argentina has deliberately avoided taking the matter to the International Court of Justice, attempting to use the 'veto' excuse. This of course is nonsense, as it never stopped Cameroon taking Britain to the ICJ in 1971 and
A false claim by Argentina in recognition of territory ,the territory of Florida,
Spain may have ceded to them before the Americans stole it, [dismissed ]
knowing argentina its probably false
Marcos Alejandro.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The point is that anyone who comes from the UK can come and live on the Falklands as they are British territory, as can any person born on the Falkland Islands can come and live in Britain as they are British its as simple as that and it wont change no matter how many Argentinians Presidents shout fowl play and cry its ours to the people of Argentina.
And until your country comes to its senses in this matter none of you are actualy welcome on the islands.
I think its quite pathetic how you keep up this sort of diolog over the Islands as any sane persons can see that the Islands have never belonged to your country and try as you will you can not change past history.
There thats me being nice for a change, I must be in good mood.
@Searinox
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Roca's Conquista del Desierto started in 1869, that's nearly 60 years after you took your independence from Spain. So your statement “First of all the spanish kill the native people not us” is simply untrue.
“HAHA” Is that what passes for debate in Argentina? Doesn't really surprise me. Anyway, shouldn't it really be “JAJA”? Yes, it's a fact. You fought a war against Spain for your independence. Spain did not grant you your independence. It was not an agreement, so you inherited NOTHING from Spain. No rights and no obligations.
“I suggest you to take a book of history because you seems to be jsut a little kid without any knowing.”
Perhaps you could provide a link or something? This is new information - that the UK had to ask permission from Argentina to exploit seals etc in the Falklands. It's so new that no history book I know of contains this information. I think you just made it up yourself...
You should actually read the UN Charter. I also suggest you read all the UN Resolutions relating to the Falklands. There is not a single one which says the Falklands are Argentine territory; not a single one which says the Falklands must be transferred to Argentina. The simply call for Argentina and the UK to settle their differences. The UK is and has always been prepared to talk about this. Settling differences is very different from a straight handover of sovereignty. Argentina also has an obligation to ensure that the Falklands are decolonised. Argentina also has an obligation, under UN and international Law to respect the Falkland Islanders self determination. They are the only people who can decide when and how they are decolonised. Not Argentina and not the UK.
English immigration
Mar 05th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0English settlers arrived in Buenos Aires in 1806 (then a Spanish colony) in small numbers, mostly as businessmen, when Argentina was an emerging nation
Total population 100,000[1] Regions with significant populations Mainly Buenos Aires
[Thus The ultimate question ]
Does this then give these English peoples more right to claim Argentina [in part]
Then most Argentineans.
Although this would unduly open a huge can or worms, and raging debates at the UN,
In part Argentina would in theory have to cede parts in perpetuity to the English if they ever decided to claim self government leading to an independent state not being part of Argentina,
Would then this new state,/country be recognised , Answer almost certainly yes, by the majority at the UN
@Britishbulldog
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Although it's true Falkland Islanders have right of abode in the UK, British citizens do not have and automatic right to live in the Falklands. For British citizens without Falkland Island Status there are immigration controls, as they are for anyone else, and British citizens must first get either a work or residence permit to live in the Falkland.
well right or wrongly
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the british people should have the right to settle in the falklands, if the falklands have that right to settle in the UK.
fairs fair
82 Britishbulldog
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The point is that anyone who comes from the UK can come and live on the Falklands as they are British territory”
Britishbulldog, this isn't true. Immigrants from the UK to the Falklands need work permits and residence permits to live and work in the Falklands, the same as any other immigrant to the Falklands from any other country. The right of abode in the UK for people of the overseas territories does not apply reciprocally in the overseas territories for people from the UK.
“And until your country comes to its senses in this matter none of you are actualy welcome on the islands.”
Plenty of people from Argentina have visited the islands
Well before the war, the Falkland islanders did not have a right of abode in the UK. It was given to them after the war and then eventually in 2002 all the British Overseas Territory citizens could convert their BOTC to full British citizenship.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the overseas territories have a belonger status, which might seem unfair to you, but they only amount to a few thousand and would not swamp the UK, but if there was uncontrolled immigration into the BOTs that could cause huge problems. Anyway, the UK is only responsible for defence and foreign affairs. Internally they can do what they like (including immigration controls).
To my fellow partners of Mercosur in Argentina, from Uruguay, another target of Argentina's bullying tactics:
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“As the speed of light is faster than that of sound,
certain people appear brilliant
before we hear their stupidities.”
(Anonymous)
And just in case you don't quite understand ........
“Como la velocidad de la luz es mayor que la del sonido,
ciertas personas parecen brillantes
antes de que escuchemos las pelotudeces que dicen.”
So are you saying that, Falkland islanders have a right to settle in the UK
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if they so choose , but British people have no right to settle in the Falklands,
I understand that an independent country,,, we all have to qualify and fit certain rules, like supporting your self and having a job, ect ect,
but i was under the impression that if you wanted to go and live the British Falklands you could freely do so,
an answer from some of the islanders please .
Only thing would stop me living here, is the right to roam, or lack thereof...i see lots of daunting signs as to not trespass without persmission, i have land in the UK in wales and the yorkshire dales, we have to allow reasonable access to the public...of course there's always the few that leave a mess or leave a gate open...but down here i couldnt see it being that big an issue.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 078 Islander1 “ yes we can even make London withdraw a Governor”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 09:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And why don't you then?
As for the “real” islanders themselves(a few hundred), they too, are unfortunate victims of British Imperialism. Although some families have lived for generations on the islands, the illegitimacy of Britain’s claim has been well known for a long time.
The islanders are not a separate nation from Britain. They are its colonists. Their fear of the return of the islands to Argentina is a foil for British economic interests. Britain’s capitalist elite has little regard for them when its economic interests are at stake. It did not grant the millions of residents of Hong Kong the right to elect its own leaders when it was returned to China nor they care about the rights of the habitants expelled from Diego Garcia a few decades ago.
Argentineans lecturing us on how to treat its citizens ... LOL
Mar 05th, 2011 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Chagos Islands was wrong and won't be repeated in Falklands. I look forward to the day when the Islanders can return to their Islands.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Hong Kong was not a viable stand alone state after the lease on the new territories expired. The people of Hong Kong were naturally concerned about joining Communist China but there wasn't a cultural difference. The UK Govt worked hard to negotiate guarantees for Hong Kong which China to its credit has honoured.
The Falklands are a viable stand alone state and UK has full sovereignty over all the Islands.
There is a massive cultural difference.
Argentina is a dishonourable country and cannot be trusted.
Bill Luxton's family have been in the islands since the 1840s, that he has a negative attitude toward Argentina might have something to do with your thug Dowling who kicked him and his entire family out of the Falklands in 1982.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Diego Garcia?
You hypocrite.
Don't sound suprised Justin, these lot always forget thier own history when it comes to lecturing us. UK has a big and long enough history to know it has made mistakes, the way Argies go on, its as if they just popped into existance, clean sheet and never made a mistake, the chosen ones... i couldnt think of a more dirty and corrupt nation.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Quote..
Mar 05th, 2011 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 095 JustinKuntz (#) Mar 05th, 2011 - 09:42 pm Report abuse
Bill Luxton's family have been in the islands since the 1840s, that he has a negative attitude toward Argentina might have something to do with your thug Dowling who kicked him and his entire family out of the Falklands in 1982.
Diego Garcia?
You hypocrite.
Yes - I admit that there is a lot of truth in that and I give you a quote to ponder..
FREEDOM SUPPRESSED AND AGAIN REGAINED BITES WITH KEENER FANGS THAN FREEDOM NEVER ENDANGERED
Marcus Tullius Cicero 106- 43BC
Oh.. and you might ask the good citizens of the Channel Islands what they think about a bunch of thugs taking them over for a while until the said thugs were ejected!
J.A Roberts how many countries said malvinas are british and how many said malvinas are argentinians?? oh sure but like your poor reasoning, you think you are right and almost all the world is not right??i already told you, if we are that wrong, then why a lot of countries say the same thing we say?? maybe the books you read say an alternative history because if a lot of countries has the same history we have then who is the wrong here?? say what you want, its you in one side and the rest in the other side, you even are isolating from your own continent (politically speaking), even Irland knows the same history ajja so i really dont understand how can you be so blind to think you are right?? you are being stubborn, and the only thing you say is the british version, and i tell you the world version, you say my government is wrong, well if you see your government, they are going in reverse to the other countries, so keep saying we are wrong, only your monarchy thinks you are right, and the your only way to persuade the others is by force, the same history of ever, UK using force to compel the others, please dont you learn, and your “culture” has more years than mine and you are still being so idiot that you keep in your own thinking, but well, keep in that “fantastic world” your government made for your dumb pride
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@51Think,well l typed a reply but doesn't seem to have gone through, so l'll try again.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Senor, l wasn't complaining of your countrymen's insults. l was just commenting on them. yes l insulted you lot because it seems thats all you understand. Especially idiots like Martin Fierro & liars like Tte Estevez. you're pretty good at lying yourself snr Think.
You are correct in one thing though m'sieur. My attitude has hardened towards Argentina when l hear your countrymen's opinions & solutions for us.
l do not disrespect the dead, but l have no sympathy with Argentines, dead or alive because they are/were invaders.
What do you expect when you invade another land? to be greeted with flowers? Had you succeeded in 1982 how many islanders would have joined the“disappeared”?
l do not wish for armed conflict but it is inevitable because of Argentina's attitude. you will try again & this time it will be a war of extermination
“Not to know what happened before you were born is to be forever a child.”
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0— Marcus Tullius Cicero
We were the invaders now??? ah ok JAJA you cant invade if you are the owner of that islands, that means recovered, Isolde take a book and read the malvinas history since 1883 and then say something because call us invaders is... hylarious
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina in the Victorian age was part of the United Kingdom's informal empire, an
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0independent nation that Britain had economic influence in, that was outside the British Empire.[3]
As the 19th century progressed more English families arrived many bought land to develop the potential of the Argentine pampas for the large-scale growing of crops. The English founded banks, developed the export trade in crops
English settlers introduced football to Argentina
The United Kingdom was one of the first countries to recognise the independence of Argentina, in a treaty of 1825. English arrivals and investment played a large part in the development of the rail and tramways of Argentina, and of Argentine agriculture, livestock breeding, processing, refrigeration and export.[5] At one point in the 19th century, ten per cent of the UK's foreign investment was in Argentina, despite not being a colony. In 1939, 39% of investment in Argentina was British.[6]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Argentine
World War II
During World War II, 4,000 Argentines served with all three British armed services, even though Argentina was officially a neutral country during the war.[10][11] Over 600 Argentine volunteers served with both the Royal Air Force and the Canadian Air Force, mostly in the 164 Argentine-British RAF squadron
English colonies in Argentina
The city of Villa María in Córdoba Province was co-founded by English families
Football
Main article: Football in Argentina
Sport
Sports such as football, tennis, rugby union, hockey, golf, cricket and polo were introduced to Argentina by English settlers
Alumni Athletic Club football team in 1910
English railway workers from Northern England founded the Buenos Aires Football Club on 9 May 1867 in Temple Street (now Viamonte
Two sides to every coin, you hate us, yet the English have done so much for you.
In the past, another generation of your countrymen proud as they were fought for the British,
How then would these people of
Briton, first of all did you know that argentina was from spain and UK try to invaded argentina more than 4 times?? but dont be confused, we are a country with a lot of inmigration not just british, we have spanish italians,germans,etc so what?? we have to let them do wathever they want just because they were our ancesters?? NO, we are not pirates like UK, if you know about history, Argentina and UK were very good friends, but since they invaded the malvinas islands the relation goes down, and they still now try to push us into a war, sending ships to the malvinas and their government told them to not listen to the argentinian ships if they are entering to argentinian sea, that kind of attitud ruin our relation with them.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0sorry mate I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am well aware of history,
and quoting from sources, which also hips up Argentina,
but again sadly it you and other who tend to run your own country down even when people try to help
you go on about attacks, invasion . Pirates.
and all the rest, that has either no proof or foundation in history.
and for an extra bit of info.
your past , IS your future, and the only way you will ever learn the mistakes from that past, and not to make them again in the future,
is to change it TODAY. simple , quote//unquote
so what?? do you think that you telling me we have british ancesters we will learn what, is because we have british ancesters that we know how they move, and thats why we know they were and are still being pirates even if you say is not
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Martin Fierro - I am still waiting?
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Marcos - what a lot of c**** you do talk! Why should we request London to remove a pergect good competent Governo - just because you want to?
Some of you can never get your brain around the fact that we have different constitutional arrangements - just different - does not meean your or our is more or less democratic. You have an elected Head of Stae who rules and is in charge of day to day decisions and plans, makes and exzecutes policy. We have am elected “parliament”- our elected assembly that does all that.
Then we have a Head of State who is the Queen as head of the Royal Family - and she does not live here she is represented here by the “Governor” - just like in many other British Territories and Commonwealth nations. Big defference is that the Royal Family have NO actual Real tive Power in the way your President has, The Queen signs all the laws and gives the approval for her armed forces to enter conflict etc and in theory could refuse to do any of these things - but in practise she does not - it would cause a revolution probably otherwise! Unless the elected Govt became clearly and openly corrupt and working against the peoples majority wishes.
You use a false argument about ancestry - please can you then tell me why is someone here whose family go back to the 1840s etc - a Colonist - if someone in Argentina whose family go back to before 1810 is somehow NOT a Colonist?
Br Bulldog,
Work Permits etc apply to all who wish to come here simply because we are such a small population- we need to manage immigration to match jobs and skills needed.
sorry mate I think you have the wrong end of the stick.
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am well aware of history,
and quoting from sources, which also hypes up Argentina,
but again sadly it is you and others , who tend to run your own country down, even when people try to help you.
You go on about attacks, invasion . Pirates.
and all the rest, that has either no proof or foundation in history.
and for an extra bit of info. For you ,
your past , IS your future, and the only way you will ever learn the mistakes from that past, and not to make them again in the future,
is to change it TODAY. simple , quote//unquote
sorry damm key board
i already told you if you say we are wrong, then why there are a lot of countries that have the same story about malvinas, and they support us, and UK dont have anyone, maybe Europe but not everyone in there, its you and one or two more with your way to see the reality, and more than 130 countries that think like us, its a big diference, then say that we are liers is says that almost all the countries are liers
Mar 05th, 2011 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no point in try to help you if you have no intention of listening , is there,
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Im not on about other countries, just the british bit, as for your past, if you think your past has nothing to do with your future, then you had better tell you other bloggers you have changed you mind about claiming the Falklands,
Your past is very important, [ESPECIALY TO ARGETINE] AS YOUR CLAIM TO THE FALKLANDS ARE BASED ON THE PAST, one cannot keep explaining it to you.
Everybody that comes to your country in the future will be Argentinean in time,
No pirates, no invasion, only Argentina invaded illegally in 1982 this is now part of history and fact,
The advice is only trying to help you. But sadly by all replies you don’t want or need any help.
If this is so, why do you keep on and on and on seeking confrontation.
Point made I think, mmmmm
No one is calling you a lie, you have no legitimate claim.
Most of the rest or south America only backs you from there dislike of us, or just being funny. None of them [none of then] will back you with any more than words, [would you fight] to defend a claim you know was false, and that’s why they will not fight with you.
.. Only Argentina can solve this problem, if and when she changes her ways, [only Argentina],
God its you the one who dont understand, you cant invade if you are the owner, they invaded, but keep with your thinking, a lot of countries think like us
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The past will in time fade into history, the world will change and move on,
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0All Argentina has to do is give the islanders the right to live in peace,
Then we can all go home, in time you will look a map and see Argentina,
And just to the right you will see the Falklands, just like when you look at the UK
And see the channel islands, right of the coast of France, do you see France trying to invade the channel islands, the French have a more legitimate claim on the channel islands that Argentina will ever have in the Falklands, but the French just get on with there lives , and the British with there’s, and the channel islands are left alone,
Now why cant you let the Falklands alone,
Do you personally care one way or the other if the Falklands are sitting 300 miles of your coast, they are of no danger to you, or will they ever be, , so can you personally tell us why you object to the Falklands so much, you cant even see them from your coastline, and if you cant justify it then other bloggers will eventually go the same way, pass this on to your compatriots, then all of Argentina may well change there minds and leave the Falklands alone, is this ok..,
#75 + 76 Thanks Dab for answering SiEster, I've slept through the last 40 odd posts! Gustafson is also wrong about the lack of British objections.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0#79 “ ... The UK never asked Argentina for permission for anything at all in relation to the Falklands....”
That's bacuase we owned the islands so we didn't have to ask anyone's permission.
SiEquinox - your knowledge of your own history appears deficient. Argentina attempted to invade the Falkland islands in 1832 and 1982 ... on both occassions they were made to leave. Britain has had sovereignty over the islands since 1690, we dealt with the Spanish in 1771 and you in 1833 and again in 1982.
You need to do more research.
Searinox
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Im afraid we will have to agree to disagree,
If only Argentina could do as us, and agree to disagree,
Goodnight, back tomorrow
49 Bill Luxton,
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe you don't have the balls to say what you mean, afraid of what people might think of you.
We have a saying, “he who laughs last, laughs the hardest” ...what does it matter what you think? I will have the last laugh.
50 Sir Rodderick Bodkin,
If you're Argentine, I'm Donald duck.
Ronald Reagan thought Videla was a great guy, don't forget that the Junta was much loved by the US political establishment. There's a good argument that Kissinger may have been instrumental in causing the 1982 war by egging on the Junta.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Oddly, the MLAs seem unaware of these details.
Ultimately if Argentina does not want to trade with the Falklands that is it's prerogative, you can't make it otherwise.
But when it puts whatever pressure it can on its neighbours to not trade with us, thats beyond perogative, thats downright dirty
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0#75 + 76 Thanks Dab for answering SiEster, I've slept through the last 40 odd posts! Gustafson is also wrong about the lack of British objections
Mar 06th, 2011 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0as usual lady BUG RED,you are USELESS LIAR!!
I have posted a reply,but something happens,it was not publised.Anyway in short Gustafsson analysis is correct,under the International Law,and his interpretation is within the framework of international Law.
Moreover,the links you provide,honetly,I do not see anything about that principle of UTI Possidettis not applicable to latin america case.It was a Roman Law,applicable also in medieval time,and the Latin americans apply them in 1810.Which is perfectly valid,because the independence from Spain,wil not be possible,if not the territories that got the independence ,will be “terra nulius”
It is the same case of Argwentina independence,from Spain.The principle of Uti Possedettis juri,is applicable,because it gives the legal definiton of the country.If that was not applicable to Argentina and the malvinas,so then Argentina,as a sucessor from Spain woul be considered “terra nulius”,which is a non sense.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=laver+on+the+falklands&source=bl&ots=i8Fkk_NiuW&sig=EYjht2Aj33VMQEia5WY3pFF4Ssc&hl=en&ei=FftyTYPmFsqr8AbC1fGfDA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBkQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uti&f=false
Uti possidettis,is very old,coming from Roman law and applicable in the 19 century by the LatinA merica countries!
Uti possidetis juris began as a Roman law governing the rightful possession of property. During the medieval period it evolved into a law governing international relations.
So long Lady BugRED ,You are still a liar!!
Thanks for the debate DAB,you have more substance tha lady bugRED.
Isolde:Especially idiots like Martin Fierro & liars like Tte Estevez.Thanks for the compliments Isolde.You never read books about history and international law?
117, Tte Estevez, I am afraid that you are confusing the two principles, uti possidetis and uti possidetis juris. They are separate and distinct legal principles, although they are linked as uti possidetis juris was developed from the age-old principle of uti possidetis. I am not criticising you, simply saying that it is very easy to get confused with the two principles.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt is right when he says that the juris principle was not really fully developed and applicable until the the mid-1800s, and even then a State had to be a party to a Treaty asserting the principle in order to be bound by it. You have also confused yourself in relation to the terra nullius principle. Again, no criticism. Many lawyers find these concepts difficult to grapple with.
However, what is often forgotten is that under the principle of uti possidetis, the UK has legal sovereignty over the Falkland Islands without any recourse to any other principles of international law. I suspect this is because no one really wants to simply rely on the “might is right” argument, without also backing this up with the historical timeline, acquiesence, self-determination, etc. Important though these other international principles are, 1833 (call it a “conquest” or “reassertion of sovereignty” or whatever) and 1982 alone make the Islands British in the eyes of international law.
In the eyes of a bunch of Kelper idiots.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uti Possedetis = To the winner the spoils (i.e 1771, 1883 & 1982)
Mar 06th, 2011 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0Uti Possidetis Juris = a principle of international law that states that newly formed sovereign states should have the same borders that they had before their independence.
The latter was not accepted world wide until after WWII and even now remains controversial. One of the questions that is not answered is the timing of 'independence' ie. when it is declared, when it is a reality or when it is granted?
By the time that Spain reliquished formally its colonies in South America, the Falkland Islands had long been in sole British hands. The principle of Uti Possidetis Juris therefore does not apply to Argentina's claim to the Falkland Islands.
The original Uti Possidetis dates back to Roman times and would apply to 1833 and 1982!!
Si Ester - get yourself educated :-)
Thanks Pom
118 PomInOz
Mar 06th, 2011 - 05:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0I pointed out the difference between uti possidetis and uti possidetis juris in my post n°75 and explained terra nullius in post n°76.
(99) Isolde
Mar 06th, 2011 - 06:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Yes I insulted you lot because it seems that’s all you understand.”
I say:
Cher Sahibah Isolde……Nobody, not even Abos, Chinks or Argies “understand anything” by being insulted…..
You say:
”You're pretty good at lying yourself Sr. Think.”
I say:
Would you be so kind of mention any of my “lies” or direct me to the place where I have written any?
You say:
”l do not wish for armed conflict but it is inevitable because of Argentina's attitude. You will try again & this time it will be a war of extermination”
I say:
That “siege mentality”, even in a travelled and educated person as you, is a logical byproduct of your isolationistic policy towards South-America and your deep commitment in serving British geopolitical interests in an area where you Brits are not welcomed nor wished.
95 Kuntz, hypocrite?
Mar 06th, 2011 - 06:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0“An eight-man SAS team was being held by Libyan revolutionary forces last night after being captured as they accompanied a junior British diplomat on an undercover mission which ended in embarrassment.
The diplomat had intended to pave the way for a more senior British official to establish diplomatic relations with rebel forces.”
One day you train Khaddafi most curel and brutal forces,the day after you come to help the revolution.
Who do you think you’re fooling?
Hypocrite and liar Kuntz.
“ .. in an area where you Brits are not welcomed nor wished....”
Mar 06th, 2011 - 07:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0We do not require your welcome or your wish. The Falkland islanders have been there for 178 years, looks like they'll still be there in another 178 with, or without, South America's welcome!
@101&110 Searinox.you are absolutely correct. You cannot invade your own land. The Falkland lslands are OUR land so we could not invade them. you on the other hand do NOT own OUR land, so if you come here armed and uninvited then YOU are the invaders. lnvaders which we know how to deal with.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 07:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are the one who should read truthful books, NOT Argentine schoolbooks. Those are full of lies. You are mislead.
@117 Tte Estevez, l have read plenty of history books, not many of lnternational Law. Refer post above: l do not place much reliance on biased Argentine books when it comes to the Falklands.
@122 Think, don't crawl to me with your“lady”Cher Think, surprised it wasn't Memsahib.
The biggest lie you continually sprout is that we don't have the right to our own land. All your arguements are based on that lie.
So what if we have a“siege”mentality. We are under siege from a corrupt, dishonourable,lying bully that denies us our existance. Didn't expect resistance, did you?
@124 Redhoyt, at least 178 years Red.
What country is that british illegal alien refering to ?? UK or Argentina ??
Mar 06th, 2011 - 08:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0She said 'land' I(diot) .............. Falkland Is .... land :-)
Mar 06th, 2011 - 08:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Take note, Mrs Kirchner; we have more right to our country than” and again for the morons who can't read but are quick to insult as every other europid. what country is she referig to UK or Argentina ?? if you don't know be smart and say I don't know , or else STFU.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 08:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0(125) Isolde
Mar 06th, 2011 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Don't crawl to me with your “lady” Cher Think, surprised it wasn't Memsahib.”
I say:
Not crawling, Memsahib….. Just calling a lady..... a lady.
You say:
”The biggest lie you continually sprout is that we don't have the right to our own land. All your arguments are based on that lie.”
I say:
All my arguments are based on my views, my opinions and my belief that he United Kingdom has no rights whatsoever in the South-Atlantic.
We South-Americans are diplomatically, politically and economically confronting a nuclear bully with pretentions over our territories.
Didn't expect resistance, did you?
Think, you are still not thinking. England/Britain/UK was in the south Atlantic before Spain colonised your area of South America .... what's 'right' got to do with it?
Mar 06th, 2011 - 09:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0And we don't have 'pretensions' over your territory, we have 'possession' over ours :-)
We've always had resistance .... and usually beaten it !
Argentinians seem to live in an Alice in Wonderland type world.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 09:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0Their views, opinions and beliefs are quite absurd.
121, dab. So you did. Sorry! I should have credited you, as well as Redhoyt.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0120, Redhoyt, I hope that you don't mind me saying that I'm not too sure that I'd call the principle of uti possidetis juris controversial, rather that it is of limited application, and indeed has been of limited practical use, in South America.
For instance, who decides what bits of the former Spanish empire belong to whom? As has been suggested on this forum before, does this mean that Argentina or Uruguay should actually own parts of the USA, Mexico or the West Indies? The reality has been that the various South American states decided between themselves who should own what, but these agreements cannot bind any other nation not party to these agreements. The reality has been that even the agreements between the South American states did not work out, hence the numerous wars over borders in South America. The reality is that uti possidetis juris only can only apply to territory that a State can effectively control and administer. The other South American countries may agree between them that the Falkland Islands was and are Argentine territory, but if Argentina can't extend its control to encompass the islands, well, tough!
I'm probably teaching my grandmother to teach eggs, so sorry, but it's not just that most of the Argentine posters here are confusing uti possidetis and uti possidetis juris, but that they don't actually know how it works in theory or in practice.
In any event, just as self-determination trumps territorial integrity, so uti possidetis trumps uti possidetis juris.
I know that it's probably not politically correct to say so, but all this other stuff is so much guff (interesting and of importance in themselves though the concepts of self-determination, prior discovery, estoppel and all the rest are)! However, uti possidetis is actually all the international law that the UK ever needs!
Martin and Marcos - I am still waiting for your answers to the specific questions I asked you?
Mar 06th, 2011 - 10:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0There is no poin in making wild assertions unless you canback then up.
AS for those of you who allege UK is a nuclear bully threatening S.America!!- christ I have heard it all now! - some evidence please?
A bit like the claim that all these other S American States are backing you in economic sanctions etc - can you list them please? commercial vessels come and go from Brazil,Uruguay and Chile as required. These countries also recognise the Falkland Islands Govt as the Govt of the Islands.
Yes you get verbal support in some international forums- you always have, but little more than that -Ok uruguay turned down a Royal Navy ship a few months agoi I will give you that one - it a way that ended up a total embarrassment for Pres Mujica and showed him clearly as a puppet of your President. Brazil? - dont accept that one - it was bloody stupid and naive of the UK Foreign Office to even ask for it - the answer was perfectly natural with a new President about to make her first overseas visit to her main neighbour- Argentina!
@130Redhoyt, thank you Red. you have answered more or less what l would have said. l've never heard of the UK threatening any South American nation with nuclear power. l think that Think is desperate for answers so he just made it up. And what“resistance”did Britain expect in the South Atlantic, snr Think? -another lie? Finally, copying is a form of flattery.That was my final line, Cher Think. Do try to be more original.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 10:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0PomInOz - that's what I meant by 'controversial'. Your explanation was better than my shorthand! :-)
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I just want to repeat two significant topics that did surface again in this thread and no Brits or Islanders seems to be very interested in following…........
Ancestry: Posts (52) and (54):
”Correct me if I’m wrong…….. As far as I am informed, about 15% of the current population of Malvinas can trace their “Islander” origin 6 or more generations back in time…..(that gives ~ 400 people)
Very nice but……………….. in your narrow-minded, haughty and ethnocentric little world you forget to take in consideration that more than 15% (that gives ~ 6.000.000 people) of the Argentine population can trace their “South American” roots to 1810 or even further back.
Lets hope that’s the last we hear about this silly argument!………………
Commerce and cooperation with Malvinas: Post (115):
”Ultimately if Argentina does not want to trade with the Falklands that is it's prerogative, you can't make it otherwise!
And if the whole of South- America decides to adopt the same approach, is it's prerogative, you can't make it otherwise!.......................... Eventually (I hope) the economical pressure will be also applied to Britain.
PS:
How to misread and misunderstand English:
At post (129) I write:
We South-Americans are diplomatically, politically and economically confronting a nuclear bully with pretentions over our territories.
Well….
You are bullies….
You are certainly nuclear ….
And we are definitely confronting you…..
But…where on Earth did I ever use the word “threatening”???
At post (133) Islander1 writes:
”AS for those of you who allege UK is a nuclear bully THREATENING S.America!!- christ I have heard it all now! ”
At post (134) Isolde writes:
”l've never heard of the UK THREATENING any South American nation with nuclear power.”
Siege mentality…. anybody?
@Searinox
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Care to list those countries which have made it official that they believe the Falklands belong to Argentina?
Not that they support Argentina's claim, but an official statement or communiqué which clearly states that that particular country believes the Falklands to be Argentina territory. There is a difference, and I don't want the former (support for the claim), I want to see statements of the latter (belief that the Falklands are Argentine territory).
By the way, the UN accepts that the Falklands are British territory, and the 27 countries of the European Union have openly accepted British sovereignty, so do 54 countries which form the Commonwealth of Nations. That's 81 sovereign countries which recognise British sovereignty over the Falkland Islands.
Let's see how you get on...
136, Think, I believe that the ancestry argument and the fact that there are many Islanders who are 7th, 8th, 9th-generation Islanders is used, quite properly, to demonstrate that the Islanders are as entitled to self-determination as the modern-day Argentines are.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Where there is a difference is that there was no indigenous population in the Falkland Islands, whereas there was in Argentina. If I was someone who wanted to wind an Argentine up, I would say that this gives the Falkland Islanders more of a right to self-determination than it does the European-descended Argentines! Thankfully, I'm not! What it does do is show up the hypocrisy of the Argentine claim that Spanish-descended immigrants to South America have the right to self-determination but that British-descended immigrants to South America do not. The fact is that both have an equal right to self-determination in their own (what they now call) homelands.
As for the issue of an economic “blockade”, this, in itself, is, as you rightly point out, Argentina's prerogative but only to the extent that Argentina does not try to get other countries to do the same. If it does so, Argentina acts outside the law as only the United Nations Security Council can put forward and legitimise such actions. Argentina exceeds its prerogative in usurping these functions.
It is also relevant that, in trying to impose such a blockade, Argentina breaches its obligations under international treaties, such as the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea.
However, what is often forgotten is that under the principle of uti possidetis, the UK has legal sovereignty over the Falkland Islands without any recourse to any other principles of international law.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not really,because at that time you were at peace with Argentina. In order to be valid,you should have declare the war on Argentina.Because you did not,that action,on taking Malvinas,was illegal.
Leaving aside the controversial matter of the so called secret promise, a majority of scholar, including British ones take sthe position that evacuation constituted a dereliction or abandonment. The 1790 convention between Spain and brittain,provides further evidence of Spain sovereignty over the F/M.
Others besides Dolzer,have questioned the applicability of uti possidetis.The concept is also ambiguous and that is not apparent wheter uti possidetis refers to possession de jure, or de facto .Anyway the new country was recognized by Britain in the 1825.
Leaving aside the reservations on succession and uti possidetis. There is wide support, among scholars,including British ones,that Argentina gained tittle over F/M, by sucesion of Spain rights and/or effective .First of all,they find Argentina took formal possession of the Island in November 1820, by David Jewett without any objection from Spain, brittain or any other nation. According to the report of Vernet’s in 1832 more than fifty nationalities,some were notified in writing,in a solemn ceremony.
http://books.google.ca/books?id=cNKtX4mYVZUC&printsec=frontcover&dq=laver+on+the+falklands&source=bl&ots=i8Fkk_NiuW&sig=EYjht2Aj33VMQEia5WY3pFF4Ssc&hl=en&ei=UXpzTZPuO4T58AaHtfjKDw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=uti%20possidetis&f=false
Again is debattable between scholars,the application of uti possidetis.But there are discrepancies.So Gustaffsson,may be correct about the principle.
Islander1
Mar 06th, 2011 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0J.A. Roberts
Thanks for clarifying my mistake that British persons can come and live on the Falkland's at anytime.
See people from Argentina that's how you apologize when you have made a mistake. I don't suppose any of us will see any apologies from the people from Argentina that now know they have made a mistake in thinking the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina?
SiEster - Nothing in the concept of Uti Possidetis or Uti Possidetis Juris says that you have to declare war first. The original concept came out of Roman law and they just attacked, they didn't declare anything!
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There was no secret promise, so yes ... let's leave that aside!
When the British left they made sure to leave the marks and signs to maintain their sovereignty .. hardly dereliction or abandonment!
Nootka Sound is not applicable as the Falkland islands are not 'adjacent' to South America being 400km away! However, if the 1790 agreement had applied to the Falkland Islands then Argentina would have been a 3rd Party under the secret clause. This would have permitted the British action in 1833.
Recognition of Argentina in 1825 is irrelevant as the British already had sovereignty over the Falkland Islands!
Support by scholars is irrelevant too ... maybe if you get the support of the ICJ then you'll have something.
Jewett is also irrelevant. There were already two claims to sovereignty. Jewett added nothing. As to there being no objections, he wasn't important enough to object to!
Quoting out of books isn't enough for a debate SiEster ... you need some knowledge of your own!! :-)
See people from Argentina that's how you apologize when you have made a mistake. I don't suppose any of us will see any apologies from the people from Argentina that now know they have made a mistake in thinking the Falkland Islands belong to Argentina Again Bulldog,there are many works in international law that explain Argentina's position as valid.The recent support,from 32 latin countries,further strenghtend argentina's position on sovereignity on the Malvinas.These include,Island States,inside the British commonwealth.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0To Robert:Supporters of the Argentine claim
The XXI Unity Summit of the Rio Group, plus the Caribbean Community declared support for Argentina in the sovereignty dispute on 23 February 2010.Peru is the most vocal supporter of the Argentine claim, and provided material aid during the Falklands War. Brazil officially supports the Argentine claim over the Falklands and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,[66] and has voiced its support at international organisations.[67] Mexico has also spoken in favour of the Argentine claim. Chile supported the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, but the post-Pinochet democratic governments have given greater support to the Argentine claim,[68][69] calling on several occasions for the resume of the negotiations at the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization [70]
Spain, although part of the European Union, has given tacit support to the Argentine claim, voting in the Argentine interest in UN Security Council votes during the Falklands War,[71] although at this time Spain was not a member of the European Union. Argentina, for its part, supports Spain's claim to Gibraltar, also under British sovereignty.
The Union of South American Nations, the Andean Community, and Mercosur have all supported the Argentine claim since their creation, and the Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations.
The People's Republic of China officially supports the Argentine claim.
139, Tte Estevez, I'm not sure that you are right about the necessity of declaring war in order for the principle of uti possidetis to apply. I believe that a “conflict” is enough. I don't think that anyone will argue that there wasn't/isn't a conflict with regard to sovereignty. The fact that the Falkland Islands weren't mentioned in the 1850 Convention of Settlement between Britain and Argentina settled the issue of sovereignty in Britain's favour. The outcome of the 1982 Conflict reaffirmed this.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There is no doubt that uti possidetis is an age-old, internationally-recognised legal principle, whatever Dolzer and others may say, I'm afraid!
Support there may be for Argentina's claim to the Islands, but the historical claim that Argentina makes is, in my view at least, based on lies, half-truths, distortions and highly-suspect “official” actions. As I have said before, there are many other people here on this forum who are far better-informed than I am on the history, but the notification of Jewett's “claim” in a non-Argentine newspaper (to the surprise of the then Argentine authorities!) hardly seems like a great start upon which to base Argentina's assertion to sovereignty of the Islands. Once Britain was aware of the Argentine claim, Britain did protest. In that day and age it was perfectly possible for some years to pass by from the date of the Argentine claim to Britain finding out about it.
On the other hand, after the 1850 Convention of Settlement, there was no official protest from the Argentine Government until it was raised again in the 1940s. Such acquiesence in law acts as an estoppel to re-raising a claim, even if there could be said, for the sake of argument, to be some doubt as to the legality of the British action in 1833.
SiEster, I've told you before ... 32 tin pot dictatorships, banana republics and failing democracies isn't enough. You need 197 and that may not be enough.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Even then, nost of the support you have is 'diplomatic', and it may be a mistake to rely too heavily on such support.
Oh, and I'd like to see something in writing about China's support, they are very careful to stay out of such matters. They at least understand the old adage about, 'people in glass houses ” :-)
Soldado Estevez. You obviously have a hard time understanding.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is what I asked for: “...an official statement or communiqué which clearly states that that particular country believes the Falklands to be Argentine territory.”
There is a very important difference between support for the Argentine claim and making a positive statement that the Falklands are Argentine territory.
All you have given in #142 is examples of support for the claim, and some are not even that - they are calls for negotiations between Argentina and the UK to resolve their dispute (and not a transfer of territory). These are very different things to openly declaring that the Falklands are de jure Argentine territory.
#144 as if a little over 2000 british illegal aliens would be enought theft Islas Malvinas Argentina. if Palestine could fight for over 50 years why couldn't Argentina, the only lenguage britards understand is a good armed conflict, but they will cry wolf all the way to the bank, mi6 is busy helping Libyan terrorits, maybe Argentine should build their own mi6 to liberate Islas Malvinas Argentina from illegal british occupation.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 02:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0146, I, apparently Argentina has been fighting for 178 years and it's still no closer to achieving its goal. And you're probably right: the only language that we Brits do understand is a “good armed conflict”. The trouble for you is that we've always been really quite good at it!
Mar 06th, 2011 - 03:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#147 LOL....I could take UK out with my left arm tight behind my back and still have time to go home and have lunch, lets see who did UK ever have a fair war with ??? I can beat up and kill 10.000.000 british babys in less then a month does that make me quite good at war ? and I wonder whom do you refers to when you say we ?? illegal alien in Malvinas Argentina or UK because neither are worth mentioning as a powerhouse.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0go do your killing in Libya Muslims wait for you there.
http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/2895.html
So Britain is a non threatening nuclear bully. Well that's progress of a sort I suppose. Argentina on the other hand is a well known bully with previous that today is trying to find new ways of threatening that small but happy community of Falkland Islanders.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 03:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apparently Spanish settlers matter. British settlers don't matter.
Whats the difference? Is it racial perchance?
Its absolutely true that no Country should be forced to trade with The Falkland Islands. Equally no Country should try and force others not to trade with the Falkland Islands. Its freedom of choice, nobody would argue with that or would they?
A more reasoned Argentina would try and engage with the Falkland Islanders. Over time mutual trust and perhaps even friendship might have developed. Even that disgraceful act of aggression in 1982 might have faded into history. But no, pettiness, sulkiness, silliness and spite prevail in modern day Argentina. Would Britain go to War again to defend the Falkland Islands? You bet your Patagonia she would!
J.A Roberts The UN accepts malvinas are british, if i were you i would take a look about who and what are they saying because UN and even UK recognize since de creation of the descolonization committee that malvinas are a colony, and now you asy they say the malvians are not a colony?? jajaja
Mar 06th, 2011 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0OK, I, you go for it! I seem to remember that the UK gave your country a good pasting a few years ago.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rightly or wrongly, we Brits are proud of the vast majority of our history. Yes, there have been times when we look back and whince when we think of some of the things that have been done in our nation's name. Indeed, there are some things recently that some of us aren't proud of - the lies that our Government told in the run-up to the last Gulf War springs immediately to mind.
However, I'm sure that I'm not the only Brit who gets a shiver up my spine when I think of Agincourt, the defeat of the Spanish Armada, the Nile, Copenhagan, Trafalgar, Waterloo, Rourke's Drift, Jutland, the Somme, Ypres, the Battle of Britain, El Alamein, Normandy and the Falklands and many, many more and such names as Richard the Lionheart, Edward Hammer of the Scots (sorry Jocks!), Henry V, Elizabeth I, Nelson, Wellington, Churchill, Montgomery and Thatcher and many, many more.
Sorry to go all patriotic on you, but the point is that these battles and these names are internationally-renowned. How many of your country's battles and names are well-known? You just don't have the history, I'm afraid to say.
The point is also that we are good at war. Always have been. Don't quite know why, but there it is. Somehow we've always punched above our weight and we continue to do so.
I suggest that you first learn some history and then get some history before you come over all macho.
britain kelpers defending human rights, wishing a more reasoned relation with argentina, saying argentina is threatening you, and saying argentina is racist??????
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0forbidden love in cold climate 2002 the observer newspaper
Yes, searinox #150, a British colony. Sovereignty is British, even the UN recognises that.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Show me one single UN Security Council or General Assembly Resolution which says the Falklands are NOT British and even better one single UN Security Council or General Assembly Resolution which says the Falklands ARE de jure Argentine territory. Just one...
141 Redhoyt, “When the British left”
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Good, finally you recognize that the British left.
“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'.
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. 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”
You also said: “Nootka Sound is not applicable as the Falkland islands are not 'adjacent' to South America being 400km away!”
Hoyt, so where exactly Malvinas are adjacent to? Africa or Europe? get some rest Hoyt.
Just a few errors of fact.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UP did not “send” a frigate to the Falkland islands in 1820 to assert their control. That is a complete fabrication.
No country which takes its independence unilaterally can possibly have any kind of legacy from the former colonial power. Argentina had no right to any Spanish claims under any circumstances.
Look up the word “adjacent” in an English dictionary. The Falklands are in no way adjacent to South America. Tierra del Fuego is, but the Falklands are not. Simply because the South American continent is the nearest landmass does not necessarily make it “adjacent”.
Not matter how you try to spin it Malvinas is adjacent and part of South America and Argentina.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#155 why don't you look up “illegal alien”, “Pirat” ,“illegal occupation” or “squating” in your britard dicktionary, contribute something usefull for the pressious air you waste at each breath, aren't europids busy killing all the muslims in Libya ??
Mar 06th, 2011 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.deepjournal.com/p/7/a/en/2895.html
156, Marcos, no matter how many times you say it, the Falklands are not adjacent to Argentina. In any case, proximity (and 400 kms or so isn't exactly proximate!) has no relevance to ownership.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 05:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK is 22 miles from France. Does this mean that France should own the UK? Chile is right next door to Argentina. Does this mean Argentina should own Chile?
And where does this “adjacent” argument leave you with South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands and the other British sub-Antarctic islands? Since you mentioned Africa in your post at 154, yes, some of these sub-Antarctic islands that Argentina claims from the UK are closer to Africa than they are to Argentina, you numpty!
157, I, I tried looking up “Pirat” and “squating”, but couldn't find either of them or even locate a “britard” “dicktionary”. I did, however, find “pirate” and “squatting” in my “British” “dictionary”.
148
Mar 06th, 2011 - 05:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your right hand being otherwise engaged.
The Falklands are many things Spanish Marcos, but they are NOT adjacent to South America. Their closest landmass is South America, yes, but that does not mean they are adjacent. Adjacent means almost touching, right next to each other, but not joined. The Falklands are no adjacent by any definition of the word. Look it up!
Mar 06th, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tierra del Fuego, Isla Bermejo and Isla Trinidad are adjacent to Argentina. The Falklands are not.
(151) and (158) PomInOz
Mar 06th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are really inspired today...............!
First, at post No. 151 you get a patriotic ”shiver up your spine” proudly thinking about that “heroic”British TERROR bombing of the unfortified civilian capital city of a NEUTRAL European country. (København 1807)
Then, at post No. 158 you call an Argentinean poster for ”Numpty” telling him that South Georgia and/or South Sandwich Islands are closer to Africa than they are to Argentina!
I would strongly suggest your check your sources of historical and geographical information……
Brainwash anybody?
#160 are all europids retards or or are the illegal aliens in Malvinas Argentina the ecception ??
Mar 06th, 2011 - 07:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@I. They are no more illegal aliens than most 3rd generation Italo- or Germano- or Hispano- or Anglo- or Hiberno- or Gallo-Argentines...
Mar 06th, 2011 - 07:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it is useless keep talking with them, there are none so deaf as those who do not want to hear
Mar 06th, 2011 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0158 PomInOz , “numpty” Well, I believe that word is from the same land that:
Mar 06th, 2011 - 10:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is illegal to be a drunk in possession of a cow.
It is illegal to hunt haggis between 1st April and 30th July.
Trespassing on someone else's land is legal.
And about South Georgia and/or South Sandwich Islands are closer to Africa than they are to Argentina, what kind of cheap beer do you drink in Malvinas nowadays?
MoreCrap, the British garrison left in 1774 - British sovereignty remained!
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Apart from that it looks like J.A. and PominOz have had the night sorted.
Morning all, anything of note? No! Argentines still relying on geography, a twisted history and some dubious SA neighbours? Yes? LOL .......... bless 'em .... same old, same old :-)
Good evening all
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0still at it I see,
just to let you know first off, the 8 brits are all safe and on there way back on HMS Cumberland.
will be home tomorrow.
next item .
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Now MoreCrap, I recognise that it must be frustrating to be operating with so few brain cells so I'll try and assist on this occassion.
Mar 06th, 2011 - 11:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Pom IN Oz
Now I want you to concentrate real hard and then review what you said at #165 “ ... what kind of cheap beer do you drink in Malvinas nowadays ...”
Come on lad ... you can do it .. small steps etc :-)
Just a little bit of cut and past, interesting reading] Honor, Shame and Duty: The Reality of Argentina’s Tattered Armed Forces Today
Mar 07th, 2011 - 12:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0by COHA Research Fellow Alex Sanchez
http://www.coha.org/honor-shame-and-duty-the-reality-of-argentina%E2%80%99s-tattered-armed-forces-today/
The Kirchners and the Military
The relationship between the presidencie of Cristina de Kirchner with the Argentine military has been cool at best. In general, the Kirchners have done little, if anything at all, to shield suspect military officials from having to stand trial due to the abuses that occurred in the country under their leadership
It is somewhat ironic that a country like Argentina is known, on one hand, as being the cradle of patriotism and of great historic figures like General San Martín, as well as repressive military officials of the 1976-83 junta accused of some of the worst human rights abuses at the time (such as dropping several drugged French nuns from planes into the ocean) as well as gunning down journalists,
The Falklands catastrophe continues to be a sensitive issue for the nation, and Nestor Kirchner was known to have strained relations with his military while president, especially after he declared that the attack on the Falklands had been a “cowardly” act. He uttered his words during a ceremony in 2006 marking the 24th anniversary of the Argentine attack on the British-held islands.
Heading South?
The Argentine military is at a crossroads in terms of defining its identity and determining its raison d’etre. Unfortunately for the armed forces, a lack of public interest in its status induces the military to look south, to raise the visibility and vigor of its claim to a section of Antarctica.
Yet for the decades ahead, the Argentine military will continue to be viewed through the prism of its actions during the monstrous 1976-1983 period of military rule and the 1982 Falklands War, when it turned its guns and unleashed its power against the nation rather than
I have just registered in Mercopress and am very surprised and disappointed by the low quality of some of the comments.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 12:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Please remember, the comments we make directly create an image of the writer and affects the credibility of his opinion. Some of the comments on this article are really poor quality.
Editors: You do your readers and yourselves a service if you filter out
personal attacks, excessive rudeness and unecessary expletives.
Welcome Henry Curtis.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 12:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0sadly if the Editors filter out
personal attacks, excessive rudeness , then to some this would take away the fun. the lower standards of some argentina bloggers are odd to say the least, anyway welcome to the mad house,mmmmm
Yes, welcome Henry. Sorry about the F-word above. Don't let it put you off though...
Mar 07th, 2011 - 01:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Im off now, back tomorrow.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0they will look after you Henry. a great bunch of guys
161 & 165, Think & Marcos, well, perhaps I got slightly carried away! That or some of the pages in my atlas have shrunk!
Mar 07th, 2011 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0My point is that the adjacency argument is also used by Argentina for islands over 2,000 kms from the Argentine coast. I mean, come on!
158 PomInOz
Mar 07th, 2011 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0I can lend you my English diicionary from Uk if you want, PIRATES specified here as well!, Please, Could you try to drink Quilmes. It is very nice beer!
175 PomInOz ,“ Think & Marcos, well, perhaps I got slightly carried away! That or some of the pages in my atlas have shrunk!”
Mar 07th, 2011 - 02:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0No it did not shrink, you are reading your Atlas and history books upside down like most of the Brits :-)
165 Marcos Alejandro:
Mar 07th, 2011 - 02:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Incorrect. They were old laws that were once in effect. The statute law revision has abolished most if not all of them now.
Except for it being illegal to die in parliment that you will often see on those websites. That law is in place because anyone who dies in parliment is entitled to a state funeral.
178 Zethee, What about this law just north from where you live?
Mar 07th, 2011 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It is illegal to kill an Englishman except for pleasure”
This is what I asked for: “...an official statement or communiqué which clearly states that that particular country believes the Falklands to be Argentine territory,
Mar 07th, 2011 - 04:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Sorry,Roberts Pin,I have read too fast your request.
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KMsQyhMEKjcJ:www.mercosur.int/msweb/SM/Actas%2520TEMPORARIAS/CMC/CMC_2008_ACTA01/ANEXOS%2520CMC/ANEXO%2520VIII%2520Comunicados%2520mercosur%2520y%2520mcs%2520con%2520asociados/COMUNICADO%2520DE%252010%2520VERSION%2520FINAL.doc+documento+que+muestra+los+paises+que+reconocen+soberania+argentina+sobre+malvinas&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgmDWbZ2Xl1sXIeloyNaxdm5fGqlaGKVzlwGfAxjj7oSRaYoL2RuEcnb0MCu6D-l4n19dkR_ZNS-b0fwgGA-qP4a7ZK5YLNIZ4YTKCILDCN0jpxV8rS1ZFu8MuuHeiEIa2fE208&sig=AHIEtbSTIrI2R16qarcnmcDLkpKkt63gpA
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KMsQyhMEKjcJ:www.mercosur.int/msweb/SM/Actas%2520TEMPORARIAS/CMC/CMC_2008_ACTA01/ANEXOS%2520CMC/ANEXO%2520VIII%2520Comunicados%2520mercosur%2520y%2520mcs%2520con%2520asociados/COMUNICADO%2520DE%252010%2520VERSION%2520FINAL.doc+documento+que+muestra+los+paises+que+reconocen+soberania+argentina+sobre+malvinas&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgmDWbZ2Xl1sXIeloyNaxdm5fGqlaGKVzlwGfAxjj7oSRaYoL2RuEcnb0MCu6D-l4n19dkR_ZNS-b0fwgGA-qP4a7ZK5YLNIZ4YTKCILDCN0jpxV8rS1ZFu8MuuHeiEIa2fE208&sig=AHIEtbSTIrI2R16qarcnmcDLkpKkt63gpA
These are declaration,in which they recognize the legitimte sovereign rigth of Argentina on the Malvinas question
http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:KMsQyhMEKjcJ:www.mercosur.int/msweb/SM/Actas%2520TEMPORARIAS/CMC/CMC_2008_ACTA01/ANEXOS%2520CMC/ANEXO%2520VIII%2520Comunicados%2520mercosur%2520y%2520mcs%2520con%2520asociados/COMUNICADO%2520DE%252010%2520VERSION%2520FINAL.doc+documento+que+muestra+los+paises+que+reconocen+soberania+argentina+sobre+malvinas&hl=en&gl=ca&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESgmDWbZ2Xl1sXIeloyNaxdm5fGqlaGKVzlwGfAxjj7oSRaYoL2RuEcnb0MCu6D-l4n19dkR_ZNS-b0fwgGA-qP4a7ZK5YLNIZ4YTKCILDCN0jpxV8rS1ZFu8MuuHeiEIa2fE208&sig=AHIEtbSTIrI2R16qarcnmcDLkpKkt63gpA:88/8378.pdf
139 Tte Estevez
Mar 07th, 2011 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Leaving aside the controversial matter of the so called secret promise, a majority of scholar, including British ones take sthe position that evacuation constituted a dereliction or abandonment. The 1790 convention between Spain and brittain,provides further evidence of Spain sovereignty over the F/M.”
But Spain's claim never passed to Argentina, so this is not relevant.
“Others besides Dolzer,have questioned the applicability of uti possidetis.The concept is also ambiguous and that is not apparent wheter uti possidetis refers to possession de jure, or de facto .Anyway the new country was recognized by Britain in the 1825.”
from Akehurst Modern Introduction to International Law:
-Recognition of a state does not necessarily entail recognition of all the territorial claims made by that state. But in every case recognition or acquiescence by one state has little or no effect unless it is accompanied by some measure of control over the territory by the other state; failure to protest against a purely verbal assertion of title unsupported by any degree of control does not constitute acquiescence.-
There was no Argentine government presence on the Falklands in 1825, so there was no 'measure of control' and the 1825 treaty makes no mention of the Falklands, so there was no 'verbal assertion of title' either
cont
Mar 07th, 2011 - 05:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Leaving aside the reservations on succession and uti possidetis. There is wide support, among scholars,including British ones,that Argentina gained tittle over F/M, by sucesion of Spain rights and/or effective occupation .First of all,they find Argentina took formal possession of the Island in November 1820, by David Jewett without any objection from Spain, brittain or any other nation. According to the report of Vernet’s in 1832 more than fifty nationalities,some were notified in writing,in a solemn ceremony.”
In 1820 neither Spain nor the UK had recognised the UP as separate from Spain, so who would they have raised objections to? Besides, the period between 1820 and 1833 was too short a time for Spain to have lost by prescription any rights it may have had. Also, Laver may not be aware of this, to acquire territory by occupation the territory has to be terra nullius. And territory that has a sovereign can only become terra nullius if the sovereign relinquishes it, abandoning it is not enough.
“Again is debattable between scholars,the application of uti possidetis.But there are discrepancies.So Gustaffsson,may be correct about the principle.”
No, you still haven’t understood uti possidetis:
- that territory remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict, unless provided for by treaty-
Spain’s treaties of recognition of Argentina are Spain’s uti possidetis treaties with Argentina. Argentina was not in possession of the Falklands and the treaties make no provision for them
The 1850 Convention of Settlement is the UK’s uti possidetis treaty with Argentina
Argentina was not in possession of the Falklands and the treaty makes no provision for them
Why do you think Pepper said “all writers on international law, including the influential Argentine writer Carlos Calvo, state that in a peace treaty, any territories not mentioned are confirmed in the possession of the power that held them when the treaty was signed.” In the Falklands Facts article?
Marcos,
Mar 07th, 2011 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is what the ICJ has said regarding 'adjacency'
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/51/5535.pdf
page 56 of pdf
To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms, namely “adjacent to”, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as “adjacent” to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other.
@164 Searinox, agreed, my thoughts exactly.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0@136Think, well snr(or is it sr?)Think, for all your bluster you still did not enlighten us with the South American countries that Britain is threatening(lower case!)with nuclear power.
1) Name these countries?
2) When were they threatened?
3) What was the outcome?
This l have to see! please don't let me add this to the Think Lie List.
@161 Think, you should read your history books again(some might say it was payback for what happened 1000 years earlier!) (but l wouldn't say that, even though they devastated France & Russia too).
Currently the South Sandwich Islands are geographically closer to South America. However the South Sandwich Techtonic plate which is separate from the South American Techtonic plate is moving away from South America towards Africa. Over time these Islands will be closer to Africa than South America.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 09:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you Soldado Estevez. Finally an answer to my question.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The first link only shows support for Argentina's “legitimate rights”. It doesn't define what those are, so not a valid link.
The second link is the kind of thing I was asking for. That is a clear statement that the Latin-American Parliament believes the Falklands to be Argentine territory.
I dont know if it is the Argentine's evolving arguements or it has been the constant underlying theme, but it seems that their issue is not really about the Falklands, its land, its oil or its people, it is just down to a very public hatred of Britain. The clear xenophobia of anything British is crystal clear in the words of all Argentine poster on MP. I have noticed any debate regarding the Falklands, the Argentine posters always descend into the...“Britain did this horrific thing hundreds of years ago” style arguement, while they conveinently forget their very recent brutal dictatorship government. No country in the world has had a perfectly peaceful and innocent past, just ask the Germans, or the Spanish, or the Russians, or the Chinese, or the Japanese, but to hold history against a country constantly as a reason to hate them is hyprocracy. If you hate Britain for its slavery or its Empire (two things that Britain willingly gave up), then you should hold Germany and Russia for all the people they murdered and persecuted. But you Argentines wont, because it is British blood you are after, all for an incident that you believe happened almost two hundred years ago. You seem to have very long memories for a country, but you like to hide all of your murderous campaigns of your recent history and the aggressive invasion of a peaceful country. Dont try and take the moral high ground, because your hypocracy is overwhelming.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 12:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But it does comfort me that when the Argentines are strongly questioned over their claim to the Falklands with facts and evidence, they immediately use the British slavery card and the British Empire card, while forgetting that it is Britain who chose to give up both.
Honestly Argentines, get some perspective, because you look like complete fools.
Marcos and martin F - I am still waiting for those answers? Funny how time and time agian when you try to pin and Argentine down to a specific point - they cannot answer, other than an irrelvant defective diatribe - or - dead silence.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 02:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(184) Isolde
Mar 07th, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your question has been answered already, at Post 136…
Don’t you read my posts before replying?
I will repeat it just for you:
”PS:
How to misread and misunderstand English:
At post (129) I write:
We South-Americans are diplomatically, politically and economically confronting a nuclear bully with pretentions over our territories.
Well….
You are bullies….
You are certainly nuclear ….
And we are definitely confronting you…..
But…where on Earth did I ever use the word “THREATENING”???
At post (133) Islander1 writes:
”AS for those of you who allege UK is a nuclear bully THREATENING S.America!!- Christ I have heard it all now! ”
At post (134) Isolde writes:
”l've never heard of the UK THREATENING any South American nation with nuclear power.”
I REPEAT: Where on Earth did I ever use the word “THREATENING”???
PS:
I don’t expect honesty or fairness from you but …….. A Think Lie List!!!
This l have to see!!!......... Please send me a copy of that ”Think Lie List”.
So far you just called my opinions for lies........
“I REPEAT: Where on Earth did I ever use the word “THREATENING”???”
Mar 07th, 2011 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You used the term bully, a bully is someone who is aggressive intimidating or threatning towards another person to get there own way.
You attached the word nuclear because it's true that we have nuclear weapons but in no way are we using them to threaten or intimidate any nation in south america.
You are wrong on both accounts.
183 dab14763 The delimitation of the continental shelf in the North Sea beteween three neighboors countries in Europe is very difficult to compare with the case beteween Argentina and UK 14000km away.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0shelf in the North Sea
“The Protocol between the three Governments reads as follows:
”Protocol
At the signature of the Special Agreement of today's date between the
Government of the Federal Republic of Germany and the Governments
of the Kingdom of Denmark and the Kingdom of the Netherlands respectively,
on the submission to the International Court of Justice of the differences
between the Parties concerning the delimitation of the continental
shelf in the North Sea, the three Governments wish to state their agreement
on the following“
188 Islander1” I am still waiting for those answers?“
Your answer is at #92,” As for the “real” islanders themselves(a few hundred), they too, are unfortunate victims of British Imperialism. Although some families have lived for generations on the islands, the illegitimacy of Britain’s claim has been well known for a long time,(178 years)”
The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200
1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and expelled the Argentinians.
The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a Brithish pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the Brithish takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”
The immigrants that moved to independent Argentina did not claim any piece of land for their country of origin, they become part of it. You are the product of an illegal act and occupation.
“they too, are unfortunate victims of British Imperialism”
Mar 07th, 2011 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And yet, they don't agree..Funny that.
“You are the product of an illegal act and occupation”
Mar 07th, 2011 - 06:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0How rude!!!
Henry Curtis****** as you see that all comments are ineffectual.
Mar 07th, 2011 - 07:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think UK**Malvinas tourists have any chances here,
becouse Argentina has 16.720.000 manpower covers males and females deemed fit for military services,ages 15-50.
191 Marcos Alejandro
Mar 07th, 2011 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell. is very good book. I recommend this book to everyone and especially for Red Rotten- anti Argentinien!!!
192 Zethee
Yes! Unfortunately we continue to Victims of British Imperialism in this century of an illegal act and occupancy. It is not funny this totally illegal.
193 Be serious
The rude going to be for the brits in few time.
“Unfortunately we continue to Victims of British Imperialism”
Mar 07th, 2011 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Really wish people would learn what words mean.
“the creation and maintenance of an unequal economic, cultural, and territorial relationship, usually between states and often in the form of an empire”
For you to be a victim of British Imperialism you would have to be in a territory owned by the UK held by force.
194 How many did Argentina have in 1982?
Mar 07th, 2011 - 09:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were they deemed fit for military service?
I guess Argentina's armed forces are much better trained now with state of the art jet fighters, assault ships and tanks.
Morning all .. nothing much happening I see. Usual Argie whinges which would suggest that the Falkland Islands are still British this bright morning! Then all is well in God's earth and the proper order is being maintained. Now, where's the memsahib with my tea? :-)
Mar 07th, 2011 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Roman law, which introduced the principle of uti possidetis into the body of international law, thought of it in different terms. The Praetorian Edicts of Republican Rome, which regulated private property, made a distinction between possession and ownership. When possession of a thing was achieved in good faith--that is, not by the use of force or any fraudulent means--Roman magistrates applied the famous rule uti possidetis, ita possideatis (“as you possess, so you may possess”). This rule, however, did not apply to questions of ownership--such matters were decided before the courts of law. [FN3]
Mar 07th, 2011 - 11:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Uti possidetis juris, as it stands at the present, is based on two ideas: self-determination and the non-interference in the internal affairs of other countries. Both can be traced back to Latin America at the beginning of the nineteenth century. The first formal application of uti possidetis in Latin America reflects the nature of European affairs, on the one hand, and the relations between Europe and Latin America following the Napoleonic Wars of 1796-1815, on the other. Europe continuously interfered in Latin America in search of terra nullius (no man's land), which later became its colonial possession. [FN5] Following Latin American independence, achieved in the period from 1810 to 1824, Europeans sought to transfer the balance of power politics from Europe to Latin America. [FN6] As a result, and in order to divert frequent European interferences, Latin American states (except Brazil, until recently) accepted the uti possidetis juris principle to govern their relations
To reiterate, the territorial delimitation of new sovereignties was based on uti possidetis juris, not uti possidetis de facto. This meant that national borders of newly independent countries coincided with the former colonial borders, leaving no terra nullius in that part of the world. A decade later, the principle of uti possidetis was reinforced by the 1823 Monroe http://pbosnia.kentlaw.edu/symposium
Marcos,
Mar 07th, 2011 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My point is indeed proven - no specific answer - just the usual verbal diretribe. I am want ing you to compare those Islanders whose ancestors arrived here in the 1840s with those Argentines who arrived in Argentine PRE 1810 - you know - when the Spanish Imperialists invaded and occupied lands that belonged to other people. Same as what Argentinians did to the Pamapa and Patagonia on the 1850-60s these areas were not a Spanish occupied colony in 1810.
You want to talk Imperialism and Colonists etc - OK - lets do so.
“This meant that national borders of newly independent countries coincided with the former colonial borders”
Mar 07th, 2011 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Show me a single South American country who's borders co-incide with its former colonial borders...
Estevez British law is not based on Roman Law.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Utis Possidetis Juris was developed as an agreement between Latin American states to solve their border dispures. Conference of Lima in 1848.
You cannot bind a 3rd party to an agreement it was not party to.
I can't make it any simpler, cutting and pasting from another website doesn't change that fact.
Of course,when it is convenient to British interest,they apply utis possidetis.The agreement of the Treaty of commerce and friendship,was very convenient to british interest.So they have no objections to Argentina(was good to invest and make money),but we take Malvina's.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0On the other hands the Monroe doctrine was in place in 1823.That is the reason,many American jurist and Lawyer,said it was wrong from the USA,not to support Argentina,because Malvina was in Argentina hands,when the Monroe doctrine was in place.
I remind you,that there are specialist,in international law,that gives all the reason to Argentina.
Salt & pepper,can bring the case to the UN,if they think,they have “irrefutable proof” about UK case.
Why the do not bring it to the UN and brush Argentina?
Simple: uk does not have it!!
Is no point to continue debating,because you and me are not expert in international law or history.Only we can rely on the studies made by specialist.
Tell salt & pepper and lady bug RED,to bring those “strong documents” they have and present them to the UN.
I bet they will laugh so loud,we will hear them from N.York to Malvina
“Roman law”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0Made me laugh. What about ancient greek law? egyptian? Dig up Tutankhamun and ask him to mediate!
yes,the British law is based on Roman law,is unfortunate,but the west rely on “Roman law”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0” ... Latin American states (except Brazil, until recently) accepted the uti possidetis juris principle to govern their relations ...”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nothing about anyone else accepting the principle. Which did not occur until the 1940's.
But of course you are talking about 2 things, Uto Possidetis which under those same Roman Laws and according to your argument, would not assist Latin American countries in the ownership of the land they currently pissess. And Uti Possidetis Juris which those same countries attempt to rely on but which. as a principle, was not proclaimed until 1848 in South America (and not even then by Argentina). Nothing you have given suggests that the Juris principle is in any way retroactive other than by way of agreement by the countries which are party to it.
Britain was not a party to it in the 19th C.
As for the Monrie Doctrine, you'll find if you look at its history that it was British support that allowed it to become a reality. The US at that time was not strong enough.
The only way of taking this to the UN is via the ICJ ... and Argentina is the only one who can do so. So go for it Argentina .... only you can take it to the ICJ because we cannot take you there!
SiEster .. you still have a lot to learn.
comment number 205
Mar 08th, 2011 - 01:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0British law is founded on the Common Law whilst what you refer to as Roman law was practiced in Europe.The only British exception is Scotland where Roman law had some influence.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ .. Common law, also known as case law or precedent, is law developed by judges through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive branch action. A ”common law system“ is a legal system that gives great precedential weight to common law,[1] on the principle that it is unfair to treat similar facts differently on different occasions. The body of precedent is called ”common law“ ...”
” ... Roman law, the Justinian Code, was effective in the Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire (331–1453), and also served as a basis for legal practice in continental Europe, as well as in Ethiopia, and most former colonies of European nations, including Latin America....”
Tte Estevez
Mar 08th, 2011 - 01:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here's a simple challenge for you. Please provide evidence that uti possidetis juris (The doctrine that old administrative boundaries will
become international boundaries when a political subdivision achieves independence) was recognised worldwide as international law even before the United Provinces declared their independence.
204 Zethee (#)
Mar 08th, 2011 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Roman law”
“The Roman Foundations of the Law of Nations makes the important but surprisingly under-explored argument that modern international law was built on the foundations of Roman law and Roman imperial practice”
http://www.oup.com/us/catalog/general/subject/Law/?view=usa&ci=9780199599875
Still doesn't make Roman laws British ones.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... under-explored argument ...”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 03:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not willing to commit himself, is he?
Islander1, Isolde, notice you “both” post comments one right after the other.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 06:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same person
I've lost track of how many aliases you have on here, what's funny is that you think you're cleverly deceiving everyone... when in fact you're so stupid you use the same methods and the same words on every post, with different names.
I can only imagine this as the result of isolation and sheer stupidity which is obviously an epidemic in Malvinas.
You always do the same exact thing. You ask a question, you get an answer, you ignore it or take it completely out of context, then you ask the question again.
Rhaurie-Craughwell sounds strangely like you as well, either you're ALL the same person or you're all equally retarded.
Go eat your cookies sunshine.
Martian, is it really paranoia if they are after you ?
Mar 08th, 2011 - 06:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0They're after berries on the wallpaper Redhot, I'm not too worried.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 06:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0lol
post didn't go through so l'll try again, grrrr.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 10:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0@189Think. after re-reading all the posts here l have to admit that l was mistaken when l accused you of using the word“threaten”.
You did of course call the UK bullies and maybe l made that mental connection. Your country ,though are the ones acting like bullies.
No doubt we are getting a“siege mentality”. but who is giving it to us?
Your present(southern hemisphere)country, Cher Think.
(your grammar & spelling are giving you away)!
l was going to compile a Think lie list, but now,l really couldn't be bothered. lt may just be your opinion, but you know it to be a lie. As you add to it, then it becomes your lie.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@213 Martino, not so. l am my own person & have no other identity.
Actually l have noticed a few people here repeat some of the things l say, but thats up to them.
You really have a peanut brain.
Simple question.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Paraguay.
Huge tract of territory seized by Argentina during the War of the Triple Alliance. Under Utis Possidetis Juris, it is clearly Paraguayan.
Plan to give it back?
JusinKuntz Please SHUT UP you dont know anyhting about that war dont you?? Brasil win Paraguayan territory, argentina dont invaded anything, we recovered cities of corrientes, one of our provinces, because paraguay invaded it, so shut up, all of you talk about things without any knowing, god how can you be that stupid??, take a book and read it, besides There are documents that say british funded this war, the war start with brasil and paraguay, after that because paraguay invaded Corrientes Argentina enter in the war, you stupid ignorant
Mar 08th, 2011 - 02:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Please SHUT UP”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 02:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ah, the standard of debate is maintained.
“you dont know anyhting about that war ”
More than you do it seems...
“argentina dont invaded anything”
The historical record begs to differ.
“take a book and read it”
I have done, I suggest you do the same.
“There are documents that say british funded this war”
Yeah right, the classic “He made me do it excuse”.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Triple_Alliance#Territorial_changes_and_treaties
”Following Paraguay's final defeat in 1870, Argentina sought to enforce one of the secret clauses of the Triple Alliance Treaty, according to which Argentina would receive a large part of the Gran Chaco, a Paraguayan region rich in quebracho wood (a product used in the tanning of leather). The Argentinian negotiators proposed to Brazil that Paraguay should be divided in two, with each of the victors incorporating a half into its territory.....Argentina annexed part of Paraguayan territory and became the strongest of the River Plate countries. During the campaign, the provinces of Entre Rios and Corrientes had supplied Brazilian troops with cattle, foodstuffs and other products.
In total, Argentina and Brazil annexed about 140,000 km² (55,000 square miles) of Paraguayan territory: Argentina took much of the Misiones region and part of the Chaco between the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers, an area which today constitutes the province of Formosa;”
Under Utis Possidetis Juris, it is clearly Paraguayan.
Plan to give it back?
REDHOYT.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 02:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I could say the same about you, about the fact that everytime you type here, you come with the same crap, however i dont have any mediocre thought like yours, i respect your posture respecting the sovereign conflict for the islands, but i dont agree on it.
You can think that the the u. n. are irrelevant at the moment, and only the will of the population of the islands is what really matters, then, dont invoke self determination anymore for the islanders, because that principple was incorporated in the article 2, of the resolution 1514, from the general assembly, your thought signalizes that the lack of respect for the institutions, is not only tipical of the third world countries, in many oportunitys, you do the same, but you have much more power than development nations.
Chaco boreal was the terrritory Argentina claim, the gran Chaco was divided between bolivia and brasil, argentina didnt take anything about gran chaco, and misiones was a limitation between Argentina and Brazil, misiones was not from paraguay jajaja i tell you this again take a book jajaja seach about gran chaco and you'll see everything you say its wrong ajja
Mar 08th, 2011 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Axel ... what are you whittering on about?
Mar 08th, 2011 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development....”
Please note the first word 'ALL' ..... now tell me where if throws in any exceptions? The UN Charter is quite clear, only you idiots seem to want to twist it into meaning something else.
And no. I don't have much respect for the UNGA .. their Resolutions have no power and only advisory weight. You lot may be used to subservience, but I am not and I feel free to question and dispute. Argentina's twisted interpretation of UN Resolutions and the discredited C-24's ramblings are a joke.
As is Argentina's claim to the Falkland islands.
(216) Isolde
Mar 08th, 2011 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”After re-reading all the posts here l have to admit that……….”
I say:
No problem.
You say:
You did of course call the UK bullies……..
I say:
That’s what you are, in our eyes……….
You say:
”Your grammar & spelling are giving you away!”
I say:
My spelling and grammar giving me away?.... What do you mean?... As far as I know, I’m born and raised in Argentina……….
You say:
”l was going to compile a Think lie list, but now, l really couldn't be bothered.”
I say:
If you “couldn't be bothered” to compile that ”Think Lie List”, it would maybe be a good idea not to refer to it as if it was available on the market…………
not as vicious as the war UK MI6 and CIA are conducting against Muslims everywhere like Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, Iraq and Afghanistan, maybe Argentina should start the war against UK illegal occupation now that UK is pesting everyone.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 04:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0RedHoyt, if i invade another country and put my own people in there, do i have the right to self-determination from there?? No
Mar 08th, 2011 - 06:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then why dont you understand they cant have that right?? it seems that YOU dont understand, The self-determination is ONLY applicable if there was native people in there, and in malvinas never were natives so stop saying self-determination because the only one who try to twist the rights is you.
if you say all that you said because you read the UN rights, then you should read it again, because you dont understand what that means
In total, Argentina and Brazil annexed about 140,000 km² (55,000 square miles) of Paraguayan territory: Argentina took much of the Misiones region and part of the Chaco between the Bermejo and Pilcomayo rivers, an area which today constitutes the province of Formosa;”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Under Utis Possidetis Juris, it is clearly Paraguayan.
Plan to give it back?
How many ways can you avoid a simple question....
226 Kuntz, “ Plan to give it back?”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 09:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Malvinas to Argentina and /or justice to the 270 innocents civilians murder by terrorist Abdelbaset Mohmed Ali al-Megrahi?, released by the British Gov. in order to please Gaddafi and gain oil deals.
Corruption and hypocrisy ought not to be inevitable products of democracy, as they undoubtedly are today ~
Mahatma Gandhi
Marcos,
Mar 08th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Diverting attention won't change the question.
Plan to give it back?
225 Who are you to say who is and who isn't entitled to self determination.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islanders have the same rights as any other settled Community. You sulky, supercilious, Argentine nobodies can denigrate and insult the Falkland Islanders and British people as much as you like but it will get you absolutely nowhere. Your pathetic arguments are full of holes and another cowardly attack by your “military” seems improbable to say the least. The Falklands have been British for generations and will remain British as will our other South Atlantic territories, so get used to it.
Sorry to repeat mysels but SiExquinox just doesn'r get it!
Mar 08th, 2011 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0” ... “ ... 2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development....”
It says ALL ... it doesn't say 'some', or a 'few' or those with dark skins or 'natives', it says ALL and strangely engough it means ALL.
The Falkland islanders did not invade your country. The Falkland islands have always been British. The islanders fall under the term ALL.
I understand it very well ...... it's Argentina that doesn't wish to!
I've been enjoying this thread a lot. I always like seeing our Argentine neighbours getting their panties in a twist when our elected representatives start doing what we elected them for and making our views known.
Mar 08th, 2011 - 11:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would recomend that anyone who is interested has a look at UN resolution 1514. I recall there being a piece in there about protecting populations from being bullied, intimidated and coerced by foreign powers. Not much comment here on that part, is there?
You Argentines are a foreign power and you want to dominate, coerce and colonise us against our will. And no amount of bleating on about what happened to a very small buch of ill-disciplined squaddies 200 years ago is going to change that.
JustinKuntz, first of all, thats wrong, the part that argentina take was Formosa, but in that time there was a sovereignty dispute, that paraguay and argentina
Mar 08th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0diplomatic settlement, so it is useless to tell you to take a book because it seems you cant understand it
RedHoyt, I answer all your comments then you answer mine
if i invade another country and put my own people in there, do i have the right to self-determination from there?? No
then why dont you understand they cant have that right?? it seems that YOU dont understand, The self-determination is ONLY applicable if there was native people in there, and in malvinas never were natives so stop saying self-determination because the only one who try to twist the rights is you.
if you say all that you said because you read the UN rights, then you should read it again, because you dont understand what that means
Answer me that if you are so smart
231 Monty69 “You Argentines are a foreign power and you want to dominate, coerce and colonise us against our will”
Mar 08th, 2011 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My answer: HAHAHAHAHA
I love when the British, masters of theft and many other bad things, play the victim.
232 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“if i invade another country and put my own people in there, do i have the right to self-determination from there?? No”
The Falklands are not and never have been part of another country.
“The self-determination is ONLY applicable if there was native people in there,”
The UN has never said that self-determination is applicable only to native people. It couldn't since several of the territories that are or were on the UN decolonisation list have very small native populations or none at all. Some never had them as they were uninhabited when discovered by Europeans.
Currently on the list 9 out of 16
Anguilla, Bermuda, British Virgin Islands, Cayman Islands, Montserrat, Pitcairn Islands, Saint Helena (inc Tristan da Cunha), Turks and Caicos Islands, US Virgin Islands.
Formerly on the list 5 out of 35
Antigua and Barbuda, Bahamas, Cabo Verde, Cocos Islands, Guadaloupe, Jamaica, Martinique, Mauritius, Réunion, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Pierre and Miquelon, and Seychelles.
dab14763, but british dont occupied the islands, they invaded because the islands were inhabited by argentina, besidesthe falklands are and were considered as part of another country but UN wouldnt ask to solve the sovereignty dispute, And to RedHoyt take a look the UN resolution number 2065.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0The resolution that states:
Mar 09th, 2011 - 12:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0”bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)”
And resolution 1514 states that:
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.
Thank you Dab, it is frustrating arguing with these sort of people. SiEquinon, you are wrong on EVERY point.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands were invaded by Argentina in 1832 and 1982. On both occassions Argentina's trespassing forces were required to leave!
2065 -
” ... 16 December 1965
The General Assembly,
Having examined the question of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), ...
Taking into account the chapters of the reports of the Special Committee on the Situation with regard to the Implementation of the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples relating to the Falkland Islands (Malvinas), and in particular the conclusions and recommendations adopted by the Committee with reference to that Territory,
Considering that its 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),
Noting the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over the said 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 Falkland Islands (Malvinas);..“
Note - 'invites' and 'requests'. And of course - ” .. the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands..”
Also note that this predates Argentina's attack in 1982. Worthless !
Martin Fierro, sorry there is only one of me- even so you still find yourself unable to answer those original 2 questions dont you? All you can do is divert into the usual rhetoric - and then have the nerve to accuse me of the same!!
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0One day I might be lucky to meet an Argentine who can speak the truth and reality - rather than fantasy - me thinks I have a long wait though!
Redhoyt, “the interest of the population of the falklands Islands” Interests is not wishes, and now we are in 2011 no in 1982 and the UN is still calling to UK to negociate with argentina so it doesnt matter the war, besides the war was made when we were in a dictatorship so is irrelevant.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islander1, its too funny that you say that because thats exactly what you did and still do
“ ... the UN is still calling to UK to negociate with argentina ...”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 01:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where? When? How? Show me a UNGA or SC Resolution since 1988 that calls for the UK to negotiate!
Your internal politics are irrelevant. Dictatorship or flawed Democracy, it's all the same to us and 29 years ago is nowhere near long enough! But tell me, in 1982 assuming that you were alive, were you cheering in the streets along with most of your countrymen when Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands??
Redhoyt, “the interest of the population of the falklands Islands” Interests is not wishes,
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Says who? Who are you to determine what the interests of the Islanders are?
“and now we are in 2011 no in 1982 and the UN is still calling to UK to negociate with argentina so it doesnt matter the war, ”
The last UNGA resolution on the Falklands was in 1988, so it is doing no such thing.
“besides the war was made when we were in a dictatorship so is irrelevant.”
Why is what happened in 1982 irrelevant, but what happened in 1833 relevant?
“interests is not wishes”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0How is being a part of argentina in the islanders intrests in any way shape or form?
Thats less than a weak argument.
213 Martin Fierro “You always do the same exact thing. You ask a question, you get an answer, you ignore it or take it completely out of context, then you ask the question again”
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are so right.
are the brits in here still trying to find a illegal alien story that seems to sound right to everyone ?? why don't they understand that in America we don't like illegal aliens.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0@217,219&226 Justin Kuntz. Re Paraguay. l have asked that same question here quite a few times. Normally they never answer.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 09:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0l see Searinox & Marcos stooping to their usual insulting replies, but..............still no sensible answer. Of they do not plan to give it back.
They hate you for putting them on the spot. How about we ask some Paraguayans if they would like their stolen land back?
@231 Monty69-you've said it all! good.
@223 Think
1)thats gracious of you(no sarcasm intended).
2)and you are bullies in our eyes!
3)if you say that you were born in SA, then l have to accept that but you learned your English from a Scandinavian l think. Thought it may have been Dutch to start with but changed my mind. Doesn't matter .
4)its only later that l couldn't be bothered to make a list.
l see that we've been blessed with I(diot) again.
239 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 10:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“the interest of the population of the falklands Islands” Interests is not wishes, '
I've heard this before and it amazes me every time. How can something we absolutely don't want be in our best interests? How could you think that you, as a foreign power, were in any position to decide what was best for us?
What a shockingly colonial attitude to be hearing in this day and age. You should be ashamed of yourself.
Interesting I(diot), I'm still wondering how Argentina will start a war with the UK, when the UK is 14,000km away, and as I understand it, their military only has enough resources to cope with a two hour conflict, so I'd be very surprised that they could cope;
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I would be very surprised that their Navy would manage six weeks at sea without needing International Rescue.
If they flew their Air Force they would struggle to get in the air, their pilots probably don't remember how to fly, and without an inflight refuelling capability, and a network of assets along the way, they would either ditch into the sea, or be impounded on landing anywhere due to dubious airworthiness.
Without sea or air transport, their Army would have to march to Canada, then Alaska, wait for a Northern Winter, then march across the frozen arctic via Russia and Europe, and finally board a EuroStar to invade Kent. There's a few obvious problems with this, since they would all likely be mugged in Mexico, arrested as illegal aliens in the US, and refused entry into Canada. Even Global Warming might drown them before they get into Russia, and after a long journey they would end up getting fined in Kent for evading the fare and vagrancy, since after all his time the uniforms would be in rags, and any weapons would have been ditched long ago after they all rusted up.
The whole concept of Argentina starting a war against the UK is a joke, you couldn't get to the Falkland Islands in a month of Sundays, what makes you believe you'd ever make it to the UK?
Monty69, Take a diccionary and search the difference between interest and wishes, and then say something because you are really confused, Isolde i answer the couestion, when you learn to read you'll see.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 02:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee the same to Monty69, search the difference, and about the final comment, you say we have weak arguments?? you?? jaja, dont you see the only thing you say over and over is “self-determination” and a lot of countries already told you thats not possible because there was an invasion, there was not native people, and the only thing you repeat is self-determination, who is the real deaf? we, that have more arguments and more countries that say exactly what we say (and not from only one continent) or you that repeat the same thing and dont listen when someone answer you?
you makes cuestions, we answer, we makes cuestiones and you dont answer or answer with omissions, if someone ask about paraguay territory they should take a latinamerican hystory book (not argentinian if you want) and you'll see tht we dont take any territory from paraguay by force, there was a boundary agreement, because that was an sovereignty dispute, if you dont want to read or you dont want to listen then you learn very well from your government
Searinox, You stated:
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“interests is not wishes”
Please explain to me how Argentina owning the islands is either in the islanders best wishes OR intrests.
It's a weak argument because Argentina is neither.
Zethee for example, argentina can negociate to conservate the life style they have, their propiety, thats what interest means, but wishes mean what they want not what they deserve. so its is not an weak arguments, what UK can ask to negociate is that we most to ensure their interest, but not their wishes.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0i told you if you dont understand the difference then take a diccionary because you are asking stupid things
If Argentina refuses to take into account the wishes of the population, then the population would have an interest in not having anything to do with Argentina, because the UK does take into account the wishes of the population.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 03:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-Determination includes both interests and wishes.
It is a pathetic and worthless argument to assume that a person only has a right to wishes after you have removed them by annexation; how can someone who has had their right to Self-Determination removed by Argentine colonialism and logic then be led to expect that they will be 'allowed' Self-Determination under an Argentine flawed Democracy after annexation?
Just because you have this mental block on the reality of today coupled with a twisted logic, doesn't mean the rest of the sodding World thinks in the same way.
Grow the fcuk up.
Ok Wireless, You dont know to read a diccionary to know the difference so it is useless to talk with an ignorant as you are
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't need a dictionary to understand the difference between then, but you need to realise that Self-Determination includes both wishes and interests; you cannot deny one but not the other, and annexation of an alien society, with an alien culture and language, is the denial of Human Rights.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Only a flawed Democracy like the Argentine Government and Constitution would attempt to deny Human Rights in some colonialist national interest.
That is what you seek to promote here, you are the ignorant, you are the indoctrinated, you are the Peronist with the Big Lie, perhaps your realisation that your argument is useless will extend to the rest of your country.
Little acorns and all that.
252 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Let me spell it out for you.
It is our wish to have our own elected representatives make our own legislation. It is our wish to manage our own resources and use the revenues to develop our country as we see fit. It is our wish to educate our children in English and send them to English speaking colleges and universities.I could go on but I'm sure you get the drift.
Funnily enough, these things are also in our best interests. Coincidentally, they wouldn't be allowed if you got your sticky paws on the place.
What we 'deserve' is not to be subjugated by you or anyone else.
It is you the ignorant, because you talk too much about the resolution 1514, but you dont say anything about the resolution 2065, then the one who dont want to listen is you
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0255 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. 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);
It's an invitation. That means it's not compulsory
It asks the parties to find a peaceful solution to the problem. It says nothing about handing over the Falklands to Argentina.
It says to take into account the UN Charter - see article 73 re NSGTs
http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter11.shtml
and resolution 1514 which says all peoples have a right to self determination.
and the interests of the population, which article 73 of the UN Charter says are paramount.
@255 Searinox
Mar 09th, 2011 - 05:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UNGA 2065 references UNGA 1514, and is therefore a part of UNGA 2065, which means that Self-Determination is the whole basis of the UN C24, and that because the Falkland Islands are on the C24 List, the people are entitled to Self-Determination as an absolute right.
The 'negotiations' are a complete nonsense, because the Falkland Islands have belonged to the UK since the 1850 Convention of Settlement Treaty signed with Argentina, the 'negotiations' that Argentina wants are based on the Peronist Big Lie manufactured in the 1930s and 1940s, and consists of no negotiation, just a demand for transfer of Sovereignty without reason or proof. The 'negotiations' mean nothing to the UK.
As a modern British Overseas Territory, the Falkland Islanders have exercised their Self-Determination for local Government, holding free elections for their representatives in the Falkland Islands Government, FIG. The only wish that they currently want from the UK is our Protection in terms of Defence and Foreign Policy, and by holding Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, but even that is at the request of the FIG.
FIG has instructed the UK that it does not want to have Sovereignty negotiated, this is their Self-Determined Human Right, so the UK complies and will never negotiate against the freely expressed wishes of the Islanders.
If the Islanders wish to hold their own Sovereignty, they only have to ask, and the UK will help them to establish their own Independence. Such Independence is their own right if they wish it, and in any form that they wish, no other country can make demands on when and how this would take place.
The only people you need to listen to are Falkland Islanders, it is their wishes that you need to make sure you understand.
If anyone doesn't want to listen it is usually an Argentine, because they live in a fantasy World divorced from reality.
You cannot tell the 3 wise monkeys what to do.
Mar 09th, 2011 - 08:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I tried this a couple of days ago, and found out why the wise monkeys are so,, so we may well have to accept their superiorly over us, they are a most powerfully of monkeys, stronger and more powerful than us, we will just have to hope and prey they do not invade the UK. as we are defenceless , how could we passably hope to fight a superior navy ,
a better train air force and a bigger and better trained army,
[why] the Argentineans are so powerful we should be grateful they let us live in the first place, still, monkeys as wise as they are,, they are still wise monkeys ???
And we are still waiting .
@255 Searinox, what a fool!
Mar 10th, 2011 - 10:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0TWIMC
Mar 10th, 2011 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Moment of truth approaching for Rockhopper’s 14/10-4 ”Appraisal” well.
RKH shares down 4.21% today to 216.00 pence….
Market seems to be quite “skeptical” about the whole South-Atlantic oil adventure.
ARG shares down 3.54% today to 33.28 pence….
DES shares down 5.48% today to 34.50 pence….
BOR shares: down 0.83% today to 59.50 pence….
FOGL shares: down 2.08% to 80 pence….
Think Vicious :-)
REDHOYT.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 08:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Territorial integrity is also a principple with so much relevancy, in fact if you read resolution 2353 respecting gibraltar, you'll see what's the thought of the u. n. regarding self determination and territorial integrity, read also article 7 from resolution 1514, it says that the sovereign rights of all the people must be respected, it means that the wishes of the population from the islands, is not the only one aspect that matters.
When i read unless one resolution from the decolonization committe, where self determination is invoked for the population from the islands, as an inalienable right, in order to finish with the sovereign dispute, then, i will recognize that my country wont be able to keep on claiming for the islands, since the begining, all the resolutions only call both parts of the conflict, to find a pacefull and negotiated solution, if you read many other resolutions from the general assembly, respecting decolonization issues, you'll see that self determination was invoked in diferent oportunitys to finish with their colonial situation, however it never happened with the malvinas cause.
Meantime keep on insulting, or typing cheap ironic comments, that only shows once and again, how low, and mediocre your thought is.
Axel, why don't you read the 2010 ICJ Ruling on Kosovo Independence, which proves that Self-Determination is an absolute right, above all other considerations, including any argument of Territorial Integrity.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 09:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In the meantime continue your pathetic claim if you wish, no-one in the UK or on the Falkland Islands gives a toss; and you'll continue to look like a bunch of rank amateurs, an International joke.
To try and promote false information brain washed by ones government why not listen to the truth that the brits/island bloggers are telling you.
Mar 10th, 2011 - 09:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and try to promote the good things, most argies could not give a dam about the Falklands, they just wish to live in peace and get on with there own lives, as for the military, they to wish there loved ones would come home, just like us, ,,what if I told you the following, would you believe it.
[this week the chances are, that a British and argentine soldier]
are patrolling together, can you believe this ???????ask and it will be provided .
hey I want my weapons to rid Malvinas Argentina of british illegal aliens, and I want a no fly zone to keep the british terrorits from shooting at us..
Mar 10th, 2011 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0we had enought of the UK dictators like and the pirat clifton
http://images.zwani.com/graphics/happy_birthday/images/19.gif
Cyprus operation
Mar 10th, 2011 - 11:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP) ... It is not uncommon to see an Argentinean soldier patrolling in British sector 2
Currently patrolling the 'Green Line' in Cyprus, 32 Signals Regiment Group (UN) peacekeeping mission.The soldiers patrol by vehicle, by foot or by mountain bike depending on the nature and type of patrol.
LIFE IN THE MOBILE FORCE RESERVE
By Sgt. S.J. Gilkinson,
United Nations Peacekeeping Force in Cyprus (UNFICYP)
There is no better example of a multinational peacekeeping force than the Mobile Force Reserve. In common with all UN peacekeeping operations, UNFICYP is a colorful mixture of customs and cultures and the Reserve is a prime example of this.
Manpower - 105 in total - is made up of soldiers of five nations: Argentina, Austria, Holland, Hungary and the United Kingdom. Every aspect of the Reserve is multinational. There is a British officer commanding, an Argentinean second-in-command and platoon commanders from Argentina, Austria, Holland and the UK.
http://www.un.org/en/peacekeeping/publications/yir/2001/Europe_countries/Cyprus.htm
,,,,,,,,,,,,
and some of you argentinian bloggers are not fit to kiss the boots of these men, but are just a disgrace,
You already have a no fly zone, and no argentinian planes fly anywhere near the falklands, and it keeps an eye out for pirate;s [argentinian]
261 axel arg
Mar 10th, 2011 - 11:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You just don't get it, do you.
You want to create a colonial situation.We have nothing whatsoever in common with you, and you want to dominate and subjugate us. If you ever managed it, we'd turn up at the C24 every single year asking for our independence.
As for territorial integrity, what a joke. If every country in the world claimed every island within 400 miles of them, what chaos there would be. Why does France not invoke territorial integrity and claim the Channel Islands? Because it would make them look as ridiculous as you do.
Axel doesn't want to understand the effect of the Kosovo ruling, it destroys his argument.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0He also thinks that the C-24 is still a relevant force LOL
Going back to previous discussions Axel, I found something for you - J:Falkland IslandsLegal (inc. Treaties, Conventions, Agreements etc)Island of Palmas Case 1928.mht
One of the decisions was that sovereignty could be maintained by something, and the example was given, like a flag left in the sand! Those 'marks and signs' left in 1774 appear to have more significance in international law than you previously credited them Axel. So, how's that survey coming along?
I told you mr.T; 220 was the floor; they opened the gates for 180.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 03:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0RNS soon; leaks are telling something. Sea Lion and all NFB is a duster. No chance for commercial wells. argentine continetal shelf in south atlantic is a plain; no geological formations to hide oil. Only way out for conflict is Uk leaving; I support kelpers human right; I will push for your feedom, but Uk has no room in south america in general arg sphere in particular.
Arg has 3 cards in her hand and several in the pile.
The 3 cards are; 1) shipping and fishing controls strenghs; 2) cruise regulations; and) lan flights permissions review.
“ ... general arg sphere .... ” Doesn't exist Billious, at least not near British territory. And as I've said so many times before, the UK ain't leaving the south Atlantic because it's as much ours as yours. Maybe even more so.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 04:48 am - Link - Report abuse 03 cards LOL Haven't you noticed Billious, the islanders have stopped looking west but are headed east .. well NE to be precise.
And those 'dusters' don't seem to be putting anyone off - http://www.urgente24.com/noticias/val/647-133/borders--southern-comenzara-a-perforar-despues-de-octubre-de-2011.html
Dream on Billious, dream on :-)
(268) Billy Hayes
Mar 11th, 2011 - 05:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yo were indeed right in your comment og mid february,telling us about RKH shares falling under 220 pence.......
About the forthcoming RNS............... I suspect they will try to delay it as much as possible and “sugar coat” it as good as they can.
Let's keep our finger crossed for another duster.
This one is “the one” for the City.
Saludos
El Think
@270 Think, you are getting negative and miserable in your old age El Think.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 08:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hell. he was negative and miserable when young :-)
Mar 11th, 2011 - 12:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0obviously is usefull to say anything because you twist everything i said, that is the crearly result that you dont have eny excuse, as you said, if you are so sure malvinas belongs to you, why the UN keeps calling to negociate, if we were wrong they take off the list malvinas from descolonization committee.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0so the only fool here its you isolde
The last time the UNGA called upon the UK and Argentina to negotiate was 1988 ..... it has been a while! Still, as there is nothing to negotiate, what is the point ?
Mar 11th, 2011 - 02:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From yesterday's House of Lords debate - “ ... We continue to stand up for the Falkland Islands, to which the noble Lord, Lord Anderson, has just referred. We have no doubt about their sovereignty. The principle of self-determination enshrined in the UN charter underlies our position. There can be no negotiation on sovereignty unless and until the Falkland islanders so wish. Members of the Government, including the Prime Minister, have consistently made this clear. We are also wholeheartedly committed to the Falkland islanders' right to develop their economy, including a hydrocarbons industry within their waters. We are fully aware that Argentina's neighbours support its call for negotiation over the Falklands' sovereignty. That is nothing new; it just maintains endless persistence.... We will continue to defend robustly the Falkland islanders' right to self-determination and to develop their economy both in private, with partners, and publicly. ... ”
And as for SGSSI and Antarica - “ ... We have a long-term, strategic, scientific, environmental and sustainable management interest in the Antarctic, South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands. These interests are linked to but in many cases distinct from the Falklands issue that I have just discussed. We will continue to protect our interests and sovereignty by taking a leading role in the Antarctic Treaty system and through a policy of presence, governance and commitment to deliver our international obligations. .. ”
Not enough room here to mention others BOT's. Not even the BIOT which is far more complicated than many here suggest! A little maybe - “ .. The Law Lords upheld the validity in law of the BIOT Orders in Council 2004, which mean that no person has the right of abode in BIOT or the right to enter the territory unless authorised..” :-)
REDHOYT. MONTY69. WIRELESS.
Mar 11th, 2011 - 04:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I agree that the kosovo case takes a precedent, but i already said in planty of oportunitys in this forum, that you can't compare that cause, with the malvinas case, because kosovo joint the territory from serbia, and the malvinas does not join the argentine territory since 1833, we are claiming for a partial destruction of our national unity.
When we invoke territorial integrity, it's not for a matter of contiguity, actualy our authoritys had been expeled by the british in 1833, if the u.k. had any right on the islands, it was only on port egmont, the only one fact that gives sovereign rights, is the permanent occupation, a plaq or any other inscription that had been left in 1774, was insignificant and inadmisible for the international right of that time, i suggest you to read about international right, i have a lot of information about it in my investigation, when i can , i will publish it, surely before may, i can do it, anyway, my investigation is just an opinion, i am not going to adjudge for my self to be the owner of the truth, like some of you do.
(271) Isolde
Mar 11th, 2011 - 05:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Think, you are getting negative and miserable in your old age”
I say:
On the contrary cher Isolde, on the contrary…………..
Negative news about the failing Brutish Oil Exploration in our South-Atlantic boost my already high natural Serotonin level, enormously.
Chuckle chuckle………….... Capitalists and Pirates being hit where it hurts them most!
My dogs luuuuuuv such news too….
My old german Boxer champ gets some extra Pedigree Denta-Sticks and the Border Collies some butter fried lamb hearts (no mint sauce though)
Ps:
RKH shares down 2.50% today to 213.50 pence….
Think Vicious :-)
Think,
Mar 11th, 2011 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm glad you find this so heartily amusing.
I hardly think about the oil exploration at all (not being a capitalist or a pirate)and the Huntaways and Collies get their ration of Wagg either way, so I guess we're all happy.
If you're short of serotonin, you're living in the wrong place. We've had wall- to- wall sunshine since before Christmas. In fact I'd be most grateful if you could send some rain our way.
(277) Monty69
Mar 11th, 2011 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”I hardly think about the oil exploration at all”
I say:
Maybe you should have……… Maybe you should……….. It was an all important inflection point for Malvinas; Imho.
You say:
”The Huntaways and Collies get their ration of Wagg”
I say:
Are you feeding your dogs with that industrial refuse?
You lazy decadent capitalistic yuppie pirate!
You say:
“If you're short of serotonin, you're living in the wrong place. We've had wall- to- wall sunshine since before Christmas”
I say:
As I clearly state at post No. 276, my dear Monty69, I have lots of Serotonin.
Nice to hear that the sun is shining on you though……Enjoy!
You say:
In fact I'd be most grateful if you could send some rain our way.
I say:
I would love to oblige but…………… I’m afraid we would never get it back :-)
If you truly think they are yours, and we stole them why dont you fight to get them back. or are you scared of the falkland islanders, there are only 3,000 plus, there are millions of you, why then dont you come and get them .
Mar 11th, 2011 - 10:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Briton, first of all, the islanders have british support, they are not alone, second, if we go to war, the only thing we win is that the world see us like the evil one when you are, and third, What about Chagos Archipielago?? is the same history of malvinas but with another country, what about the self determination of the people who lived in malvinas before 1833, or beter what about the self determination of the people who lived in chagos archipielago before UK expelled them too and take control of their archipielago?? please brits you say self determination when in both cases you didnt respect it, in malvinas you said you were in there before and what about chagos?? you didnt were there before and you did exactly the same thing that malvinas. You dont have any excuse. Malvinas Argentinas
Mar 11th, 2011 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0280 Searinox
Mar 12th, 2011 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would advise you not to get into a discussion about the Chagos Islands. That subject has been done to death on here, and you always get forced into a corner you can't get out of.
No-one here approves of what happened to the Chagossians. The Chagos islands were, however British territory and were previously uninhabited. You would probably describe the Chagossians as an'implanted population'.The British expelled them because they could. And that appears to be what you want to happen to us. Isn't it?
As I said,don't go there.
#280 - “ .. what about the self determination of the people who lived in malvinas before 1833,...”
Mar 12th, 2011 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0They still have them, after all they remained. It was only the trespassing garrison that was ejected!
Axel - the 'marks and signs' WERE sufficient, and would have been for the Island of Palmas case in 1928. That case is important. It throws out the geographical argument and supports the British case not the least since 1833. The biggest probllem that Argentina has is that it cannnot claim territorial integrity when it never establed sovereignty over the Falkland islands, never owned the islands as a part of its territory.
As I've said before the matter lay between Spain and Britain. Argentina was not a party to the dispute. Uti Possidetos Juris did not apply, but Uti Possidetis de facto did ... job sorted - in 1833 !
Monty69 shh dont say anything that you are confirming how ignorant you are, before Uk there were people living in chagos archipielago since 18 century and UK go there in 1965, even you dont know about that and you write without knowing, can you see, how uk lies use always the same lies to keep stealing from another countries, nice monarchy you have, even you dont know that your parlament said the invasion to chagos archipielago was illegal, but your queen made a decree to unable the parlament decision
Mar 12th, 2011 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0RedHoyt read history books from another countries, im not saying from argentina, but dont read anymore from your country books because your country has one version, and the rest of the world has another, maybe my country has corruption, but your monarchy has a lot of lies and secrets even you dont know
The rest of the world has no real opinion SiEquinox. Argentina claims the world's support but if that were so why aren't the Falkland Islands a part of Argentina?
Mar 12th, 2011 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0One of the problems that the Chagos islanders have is that none of them ever owned the land they lived on or had any right of abode on the archipeligo. The land was owned by a company and the workers could only stay whilst they worked. This policy became relaxed but even then the old had to provide some service or they were required to leave the islands. Check it out, it's all there in the historical records. Now I'm not saying what the British Government did was good, but it was legally correct. There is no natural law that says that life has to be fair.
Chagos is in any case irrelevant to the Falkland islands ... unless the yanks want to build an airport there :-)
As for the rest ..... if you are so sure of the history, why not go to the ICJ ?
Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is your eyes that are closed .... two generations of indoctrination by your perverse governments. We feel for your pain .. and you ignorance.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0We have the evidence after all ... what do you have?
@276 Think. lack of oil doesn't bother me either cher Think. l've got no oil shares. Most of my money is in gold. ln one year its gone from us$1150 to us$1450 & is tipped to go to us$4000 an ounce(multiply by 30 to get per kilo).
Mar 12th, 2011 - 10:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0So you've got Border Collies? l love B.Collies. the most intelligent dog l have ever had anything to do with.(much smarter than some humans!)
They need to be able to work though. definately not a town dog.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@283 Searinox, l see our friend , when he cannot get his own way, descending to personal insults & mumbling in a foreign language again.
Accept it dear Searinox, the Falklands are not yours, never have been & never will be. you can bring up whatever arguement that you like,we don't care. Accept the truth and move on, if you can.
(287) Isolde
Mar 12th, 2011 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Lack of oil doesn't bother me either Cher Think. l've got no oil shares.”
I say:
As a Kelper you should be bothered…. It will certainly “bother” you ……
British Oil exploration was an all importan“Inflection Point” and a “Game Changer” for Malvinas future; Imho.
You say:
”So you've got Border Collies? l love B. Collies. The most intelligent dog l have ever had anything to do with. (much smarter than some humans!)”
I say:
As you surely know, the Argie Border Collies are not intelligent….
They are, of course, brainwashed, dishonorable, untrustworthy, useless, ugly and lazy :-)
“ ... British Oil exploration was an all importan“Inflection Point” and a “Game Changer” for Malvinas future; Imho....”
Mar 12th, 2011 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your humble opinion is quite wrong Think ... no oil = no change. Oil = big change. Nothing Argentina can do ... but hey, ... dream on:-)
Redhoyt just time will show us that
Mar 12th, 2011 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@288 Think, as l remarked before, you are getting very negative senor.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 04:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l didn't think that you would be allowed to own a great British breed like Border Collies! only joking!
-when you were talking about being brainwashed,lazy, untrustworthy, ugly etc etc, you meant the people, not the dogs, didn't you?
smile, cher Think, you'll get used to us being here.
Searinox, we'll all be long dead, and so will all our Grand Children before anyone on the Falkland Islands thinks about Argentine Sovereignty as being a positive move.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 04:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(291) Isolde
Mar 12th, 2011 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Didn't think that you would be allowed to own a great British breed like Border Collies”
I say:
I don’t “own” the dogs……. We enjoy the mutual pleasures and rewards of each other’s company…… :-)
You say:
”Smile, cher Think, you'll get used to us being here.”
I say:
I was quite used to “You being here” until, all of a sudden, you Brits got extremely haughty & greedy, starting your confrontational South-Atlantic Oil Prospection under the worst imaginable political and economical context.
Your loss … our gain…..
Think Vicious
It was interesting to see another thread on Mercopress today regarding Gibraltar and Spain - some Spanish politicians have visited Peter Caruana , the Chief Minister, to discuss matter of mutual interest. Its all part of the tripartite discussions that are on going between Spain, Gibraltar and the UK
Mar 12th, 2011 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why cant the Argentines take a leaf from the Spanish book and give up this stupid aggressive attitude towards us? Recognise that we are here to stay so they might as well talk about things of mutual interest - conservation of fish stocks for instance instead of deliberately trying to wreck the fishery in order to damage our economy. Lift the illegal ban on charter flights to the Falklands from South America.
Argentina's present tactics have created a younger generation of Falkland Islanders who are even more anti-Argentine than I am!
Is it not interesting that they only blockade things from south America.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 10:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thus proving they cannot blockade internationally direct to the Falklands,
or British or other commerce, as this may be seen as aggressive and an act of war, so in part, they only do just enough to satisfy their ego, but not enough to cause possible retaliation’s in fact proving that Kristina has no more of an interest in the Falklands than her supporters, but just enough to brain wash her people into thinking she is fighting for them,
but like past Argentinean governments, they do nothing .
Think's gambling on the wrong horse. If there's no oil then there's no publicity. The story of exploration has already sunk into the background. It has become 'normal' and the world has lost interest. The lack of momentum this past few months is very obvious.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Now a big oil strike would put the Falkland islands back into the news.
A duster will just be ... routine!
Think “gambling” on the “no oil” horse:
Mar 13th, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fast and easy Oil money riches dreams evaporate…….together with all those pharaonic development plots and schemes.
With no vital oil interests to defend and no serious military threat in sight, the garrison personnel will certainly be severely cut, reducing that source of revenue too.
Argentina will continue strengthening their “Regional Denial of Services” policy, making the fishing, tourism and transport industries on the Islands more economically unviable by the day.
South-America, awake and made aware of Britain’s disdain, haughtiness and true intentions in the region, will most certainly align further with the Argentinean position.
Chileans, St. Helenians and other “foreigners immigrants will be the first to lose their jobs, automatically losing their residence rights in the process.
“Normal” young kelpers and belongers with UK right of abode will most certainly emigrate in search of broader life perspectives. (St. Helena syndrome)
Well-off diehard backward-looking British squatters will indubitably stay; preventing, by their sole reactionary presence, any new immigration of “normal” people.
A social and economical dysfunctional British post-colonial enclave populated by a negligible number of rich and aged British squatters with the sole purpose of maintaining some kind of British anachronistic geopolitical domination on the South Atlantic.
That's exactly what we wish the world to see..........
Think “gambling” on the right horse!
Demographics are demographics and will be what they will be
Mar 13th, 2011 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0However, denial of services by any member state of the United Nations to the Falklanders because the Falklanders are Falklanders or associated with the Falklanders is a repressive measure against Falklanders in breach of United Nations resolution 1514(XV)
There is no need for Argentina or its regional allies to invoke systematic political & economic persecution of the ethnic minority of Falklanders, but to their shame they choose to do so
Contrary to your ill-will & perverse opinion Think, the sole purpose of the people of the Falkland Islands will be to freely live the life they choose in their home under their own free choice of government
“ .. With no vital oil interests to defend and no serious military threat in sight, the garrison personnel will certainly be severely cut, reducing that source of revenue too ...”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 01:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh dear, you still haven't understood this bit have you Think? It doesn't matter whether there is oil or noy, the UK is committed. You committed us in 1982!
“ ... Argentina will continue strengthening their “Regional Denial of Services” policy, making the fishing, tourism and transport industries on the Islands more economically unviable by the day....”
Well there's not mucg sign of it so far!
“ .. South-America, awake and made aware of Britain’s disdain, haughtiness and true intentions in the region, will most certainly align further with the Argentinean position...”
Sounds like you've lost the plot a bit there Think! Accusations of haughtiness coming from an Argentine are quite funny though :-)
“ ... Chileans, St. Helenians and other “foreigners immigrants will be the first to lose their jobs, automatically losing their residence rights in the process.....”
Oh dear, you are starting to ramble now!
” .. “Normal” young kelpers and belongers with UK right of abode will most certainly emigrate in search of broader life perspectives. (St. Helena syndrome) ...”
Unlikely, but hey .... keep rambling on, this is funny :-))
“ ... A social and economical dysfunctional British post-colonial enclave populated by a negligible number of rich and aged British squatters with the sole purpose of maintaining some kind of British anachronistic geopolitical domination on the South Atlantic.... That's exactly what we wish the world to see..........”
Why? What difference would it make? Argentina would still not be able to show that it had any right of sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and, because we British will continue to protect out Antarctic holdings, we'll remain in the south Atlantic.
Think's gambling with his marbles :-)
Are the argentines a religious people do we think.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the bible says we must love our enemy.
[ does Argentina love the British]
mmmmmmm
@299Redhoyt, Think's lost his marbles, Red.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@297Think, what a load of rambling drivel, Cher Think. surely you can come up with something better than that? The UK & the Falklands will yet share in Antarctica's wealth & there is nothing that you can do about it. -and why should you? you have no more a valid claim on that continent than anyone else.
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!