MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
New Decolonization Committee president invited to visit Argentina
Argentina is multiplying its international presence to boost the sovereignty claim over the Islas Malvinas, which next June 23, ‘as every year will be ratified’ by the UN Decolonization Committee, said Argentine ambassador at the UN Jorge Argüello according to a report from Telam, the official Argentine news agency. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesLol. The Argentine government is hilarious. Bunch of comedians!
Mar 12th, 2011 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Timerman in the UN in June. Will he still have a job by then? Whoever goes from Argentina, it is nothing mote than a junket at the expense on the Argentine tax payer. They will send someone to say a pile of inaccurate drivel that we have all heard before that will change nothing. The same will happen time after time but the Falkland Island flag with the Union flag in one corner will continue to fly and in the end that is all that matters, because the Falkland Islanders want it that way and Argentina is powerless to change anything.
Mar 12th, 2011 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... but if you ask me if there has been any advance over last year, I must say no, ... ”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Same as every year !
I've seen the kind of crap coming from you Brits, I wouldn't be calling anyone 'comedian'.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 01:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Islas Malvinas belong to Argentina.
3 Rotten
Mar 13th, 2011 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Rotten has not this begins to be totally different from 178 years ago, The Decolinizacion cuention is coming and just it is only time!
2 Beef
Falkland Island flag with the Union flag in one corner will continue to fly.......mmm!!!Please could you find a place in the Malvinas Island's museum for the flag that was never acknowledged and it never existed.
1 Domingo
The Argentine government is hilarious. Bunch of comedians!!!
I think you should worry a little......
Really! So what has been achieved in the last 12 months? Or the last 20 years? Or the last 60? Has Argentina proved her case? If so, then why are the Falkland islands so clearly still British? Has Argentina actually come up with any 'proof' at all?
Mar 13th, 2011 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Where are the Resolutions that Argentina claim that Britain has ignored? Nothing since 1988, no?
And after the last International Decade what credibility does the C-24 still have? Dominated as it is by biased countries, what has it achieved?
Last week in the House of Lords debate it was suggested by one speaker that the Government consider making the BOT's a part of Britain in the same fashion that France and the Netherlands have done. Then they would no longer be Non-Self Governing Territories and would not fall under the remit of the C-24.
Argentines appear confused about what the C-24 can do for them. It only has one job, and that is to lead the 'colonies' on it's list to independence. It is not there to resolve territorial disputes and has no authority to do so. All Argentina is achieving is a little publicity which it would otherwise not get!
The C-24 is irrelevant, which is why it cannot achieve its aims. I'm surprised it got funding for another decade. If it fails to achieve anything this time, I suspect its very existence is in danger.
“Last week in the House of Lords debate it was suggested by one speaker that the Government consider making the BOT's a part of Britain ”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Best idea yet. Do you have any links? i'd quite like a read.
No sooner said - http://www.theyworkforyou.com/lords/?id=2011-03-10a.1768.0&s=votes
Mar 13th, 2011 - 05:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Hoyt, interesting link
Mar 13th, 2011 - 06:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Biodiversity in the overseas territories is globally significant. There are many examples: Ascension Island supports the second largest green turtle rookery in the Atlantic; Gough Island, near Tristan da Cunha, is one of the most important seabird islands in the world; and the Great Chagos Bank is the world's largest coral atoll”, with no people because we forced them out of their homeland like the Argentineans from Malvinas in 1833.
“There are also individual political issues, such as the worsening of relations between the Falklands and Argentina, underlined in the UNASUR statement by the various countries of South America regarding the significant movement of ships whose route includes the Falkland Islands, South Georgia and South Sandwich. This, of course, could have repercussions not only for tourism but for fishing and petroleum exploration” You bet your rear end that it will!
2 - Martin, the Islands belong to the Falklabd Islanders and it is their interests which are paramount. Can you refer to any international legal judgment that suggests otherwise.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 07:12 am - Link - Report abuse 03 - kiwi, get your tenses right. The flag exists in the past, present and future. “Worry a little”? What is this a climb down? The last thing the UK has to worry about is Argentina? No threat is posed by you, diplomatic, legal or military. If there was any threat things would have changed by now. Now run along and go and play with your toys.
“ ... could have ...”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 08:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Maybe, but not much sign of them yet!
And still getting your facts wrong about 1833 MoreCrap? This is a little strange because by now you've probably checked out the evidence and know full well that the garrison were required to leave and not the settlers. This means of course that now you are niether confused or mistaken, but a liar !
As with most of your countrymen !
Argentina - Groans, moans, whines, bitches and sulks.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0UK/Falkland Islands - Yawns.
“I try to expose the current situation of the Malvinas sovereignty claim”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0The Argentinean claim to the Falkland Islands is often exposed as a sham...well done.
If Argentina is so against colonialism...why is it trying to impose it upon the peaceful people of the Falkland Islands....?
They to have another Conquest of the Desert when they attacked the Falkands in the 80's... look where that got them...
“with no people because we forced them out of their homeland like the Argentineans from Malvinas in 1833”
Mar 13th, 2011 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Firstly. those settlers came from Buenos Aires provinces, which at that time was not in communion with the rest of the United Provinces. It's stretching things a bit to call them “Argentinians”. They were of mixed nationality anyway.
Secondly, only the garrison was asked to leave (it has already been protested through the correct channels).
Apart from four civilians, all the rest remained. So just a myth that they were all forced out.
Thirdly, since none of those settlers had been born in the Falklands, it is also taking it one step too far call the place their “homeland”.
Argentina has a hostile sovereignty claim against the interests of the Falklanders & Ecuador publicly support Argentina's systematic policy of political persecution of the Falklanders as a distinct group of people
Mar 13th, 2011 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Given that Ecaudor is partisan in favour of Argentina's sovereignty claim & the C-24 chairman is invited to visit to discuss Argentina's hostile sovereignty claim against the Falklanders, then intervention by the C-24 chairman to undermine the implementation of resolution 1514(XV) would be a serious case of unfit conduct
The only proper conduct of the C-24 chairman is to demand Argentina cease its repressive measures against the Falklanders & to demand Argentina support the full implementation of resolution 1514(XV) in the Falkland Islands
If Argentina does not comply immediately, the C-24 must report to the UNGA that Argentina continues to be in public breach of UN resolution 1514(XV). Perhaps sanctions should be applied
Given Argentina has a sovereignty dispute with the UK, the advice the C-24 chairman should offer Argentina is that Argentina's proper course of action is to make its claim at the International Court of Justice because the C-24 has no authority or competence to deal with a sovereignty claim & cannot resolve the matter
At the ICJ Argentina can present its opinions & hearsay evidence about its theoretical claim of sovereignty & theoretical loss of territorial integrity of the Falkland Islands & if Argentina wishes also South Georgia, Sandwich Islands & British Antarctica, if the Antarctic Treaty members so agree
The British can then state their defence that the Argentine claims are spurious & offer fact & evidence of the British de facto & de jure 178 years of sovereignty & territorial integrity
The court can agree the establish facts, weigh the evidence & decide appropriate remedy if any & pass judgement if the participants agree or offer advisory judgement to act as the basis for trilateral negotiation & honorable settlement
And has C-24 visited the Falklands....nope the UK and the Falklands government need to follow the example of Gibraltar and Bermuda, don't bother turning up, if a body which claims to be neutral and working for your territory fails to listen, then that body is defunct, and should have its legitimacy challenged by being boycotted.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 12:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentinian Ambassador Argüello said ”To each meeting I go world wide I organize a parallel agenda where I try to expose the current situation of the Malvinas sovereignty claim”.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 02:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I am pleased that Ambassador Arguello is informing the world about the position of the Falklands wrt its status under international law.
The UK and the FI must be well pleased that this Ambassador believes in the International Law and the paramouncy of the rights of the inhabitants of the Falkland Islands.
These islands are, in law, a British Overseas Territory (constitutional monarchy and parliamentary democratic dependency).
The paramount right of the inhabitants are conditioned by their ethnicity/origins, and with over 90% being FI and UK, their rights will be expressed in favour of FI/UK rather than Argentina - who are conspicuous by their absence on these Islands:
61.3% Falkland Islander
29.0% British
2.6% Spaniard
0.6% Japanese
6.5% Chilean & Other
Even should Unasur 'decide' otherwise, it makes absolutely NO difference under International Law.
Martin and Marcos, interesting your statements over the Falklands Flag and Tourism(vessels I presume?).
Mar 13th, 2011 - 02:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fact - UN recognises there is a dispute-yes- but the Un also recognises that the current Government of the Islands is the Falkland Islands Government - and thus the Islands flag is internationally legitimate.
fact - vessels flying this flag visit at least 2 S American nations which are your neighbours! Dont forget in all the side(onlyside-agreements NOT main agenda agreements)agreements of Unasur and Oas etc the countries have qualified their positions by basically saying they support Arg - but within the rules on Int Law - that means they accept and recognise out flag and our existence and our democratically elected Government.
Fact - last time Arg tried to interfere with cruise Vessels coming here the hint from the big companies was that they might simply drop Argentina from their intineraries - all of a sudden the interferences melted away!
Just for ones can we have some reality from the Argentine contributors - instead of fiction and fantasy.
how can you de-colonise somwhere that isnt a colony...it has self rule and the right to choose to do so. A colony is controlled by a parent state...Uk has clearly given the choice of the Islands fate to the Islanders...kinda makes a mockery of the futile attempts of the moronic Argies.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 03:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I dont see Argentine wanting to give power back to the native south americans? kind of hypocritical don't you think?
Perhaps we all know why the British are the envy of the world, the kind of place Argentina yearns to be like, for they look to us to set a gentlemen’s example of how to do things,
Mar 13th, 2011 - 06:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But as yet she looks to her past , of taking claiming and shaming herself,.
Now what would she do if C24 gets abolished as expected,
The highest military minds dismissed the UN as a irrelevance more than ten years ago,
You have more chance of Argentina BECOMING BRITISH, than you have of getting the UN to agree on ANYTHING ?? Lol
,
All Argentina children are taught that the Malvinas/Falklands belong to Argentina. History shows that everytime an Argentina government is in trouble at home, it tries to divert its internal problems to the Malvinas/Falklands issue.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The elections for the president of Argentina are due soon.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 09:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why should the president of the C-24 visit Argentina, is Argentina a colony?
Talk,moan & sulk(l like that one! thanks, Be Serious)all that you like, you still won't get the Falklands.
Mar 13th, 2011 - 09:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@4 sr Martino, they're called the Falklands,not malvinas; and they are OURS, not yours.Please get it right.
Quite right Justin - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/8379443/Argentinas-president-will-use-Falklands-as-key-to-re-election.html
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0At least the election should provide plenty of empty rhetoric for Mercopress ... keep the threads going :-)
Morning all! Falkland islands still full of (possibly starving) Falklanders? Yes! Excellent ... the all is as it should be :-)
Well we now know what the secret vote at the UN C24 was all about, they didn't like an Ambassador from a Commonwealth Country with HM The Queen as Head of State considering the option to visit the Falkland Islands did they?
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0So all the yes men to Argentina decided to secretly vote him out of office, and vote in someone who has a bias towards Argentina, and a pressing need to visit a part of the World that isn't currently on the UN C24 List.
The UNGA should be made aware of the bias, and the waste of resources in the new UN C24 President in undertaking unnecessary travel that does not benefit any NSGT on the UN C24 List.
Why is the UN C24 visiting a Country seeking Colonial Expansion and Annexation of an Island People from the recognised Administrative Power?
The only assumption to make it that he's there to pick up a suitcase of money as payment for corrupting the mandate of the UN C24.
Where is the oversight?
Ban Ki Moon's speech on the 24th February bear some inspection, for example he said “ ... Dialogue aimed at improving cooperation between the Special Committee and the administering Powers continues to be of utmost importance....”
Mar 14th, 2011 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Of course the Committee then promptly ignored this by voting Cuba into the Vice -Presidents chair. With another Latin country holding the Presidency, this immediately creates a further bias against the one Administering Power that the Committee was being instructed to get close to - Britain! After all, the majority of Non-Self Governing Territories on the Committee's list fall under British Administration.
So the head of the UN is immediately ignored and the chances of the Decolonization Committee achieving anything in their 3rd Decade much diminished.
Still one of the other things the Committee has a remit to oversea is 'Outer-Space”, so maybe that will give them something to do in the next 10 years :-)
http://www.un.org/apps/news/infocus/sgspeeches/statments_full.asp?statID=1090
He/she goes progressing the taking of conscience on the part of the opinion public World cup of the legitimate reclamos of Argentina. They demonstrate it since the fact that is a bilateral dispute, visit the involved parts. The fundamental error of the Islanders, is to believe that they are third parts and in fact they are represented by the United Kingdom, they are not a country, alone a village and naturally he/she is not since the native population of the islands they are implanted, robbing a government legitimates in 1833. Coarse to observe the history to realize.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 12:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rolly - the UN says that they are a Non-Self Governing Territory, and an old colony! So you must be wrong. There is no dispute but what there is is indeed bilateral ... it's between the Falkland islanders and Britain.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 02:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What happened in 1833 was between Spain and Britain - nothing to do with Argentina. Learn a little ;-)
Dear Redhoyt (#): we are talking of a dispute of sovereignty about the islands Malvinas/Falklands between Argentina and Great Britain. Then evidently we speak of a litigation. The islanders of Falklands, as you like to call they are had a government that is the Kingdom Together of Great Britain that Argentina stops it is an occupation it illegitimates.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 03:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What happened in 1833 was between Spain and Britain - nothing to do with Argentina. Learn a little ;-)
In 1833 their inhabitants were expelled by the force by Great Britain and Argentina was already Independent since I declare its independence in 1816.
An advice and he/she doesn't take it to bad: Non adjetive the answers, be humbler, can we agree or not, or are you maybe so sublime that he/she knows all the answers on the conflict and does he/she give lessons to the other ones?
Thank you.
Raul - one simp[le question for you:
Mar 14th, 2011 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you and your family of European or Pampas/Patagonian Indian origen descent?
If you are of European descent then you are 100% IMPLANTED into a Country AGAINST the wishes of the natural indegenous people at that time - its called Colonialism.
27 Raul
Mar 14th, 2011 - 03:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, Raul, this is your fundamental mistake. We are a third party in this,because the UK has said they will not discuss sovereignty unless we wish it. And since nothing happens without our say so, we are involved at every stage.
Even if this ceased to be the case, we would then declare independence in our own right.
You don't know anything about us, and neither does the C24. That is why the Chairman has to visit here. How can you have an opinion about the future of a people and a place if you've never even been there? If he doesn't come, he shows himself to be biased and worthless.
Oh and our government isn't the UK government, it is FIG.
Islander. Excuse, with all respect, this you confused. You have a concept reduccionista of the history, don't be offended, accept it but it is this way.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 05:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If you plows of European descent then you it plows 100% IMPLANTED into to Country AGAINST the wish of the natural indegenous people at that it cheats - its called Colonialism.
In the world historical processes you cannot generalize or to simplify everything, you have to contemplate and to understand the HISTORICAL CONTEXTS in that the facts took place. I reign United he/she is 500 years of existence old, with a WORLD imperial plan, of conquest, with their commercialism and their fleet IN ALL THE CONTINENTS. Argentina is hardly 200 years of existence old that although it is true Spain I colonize these lands, and he/she made terrible things, you cannot compare the voltage and the Colonial volume and Imperial of Great Britain with its you pierce colonial to dominate the world trade ...Basta to remember the history with África, Asia, (India Pakistán, Arabia) Oceanía, America, etc.etc. they are different contexts.
Thank you.
Monty69 (#): Oh and our government isn't the UK government, it is FIG.
This you in a contradiction, are they English or Argentinean? That is the question. The interests can be contemplated, human rights and economic of their inhabitants that they were CONSEQUENCE of illegal occupation, but never their desires since had previous inhabitants in the islands that were expelled by the force and that the Argentinean town claims its recovery from 1833. We are speaking of national sovereignty of a country that was removed by the force.
Monty69, you have an authority that is the United Kingdom, you have a governor imposed by the United Kingdom that Argentina stops it is an illegal authority. You are civic of the United Kingdom it proves It the fact of the existence of a nuclear military base in the islands that he/she threatens the Argentineans and South America in claiming their le
no third party is a concept scoured the UK to sustain a situation of usurpation of the Falkland Islands.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 05:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0UK concept is used according to convenience of the Empire, an example of what I say is the island Diego Garcia That if there was an indigenous population
”Dear Redhoyt (#): we are talking of a dispute of sovereignty about the islands Malvinas/Falklands between Argentina and Great Britain. “
Mar 14th, 2011 - 05:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britain placed restrictions on its sovereignty when it recognised Falklands' right to self determination.
”Then evidently we speak of a litigation. “
What litigation? There is no litigation. Argentina refuses to take the case to the ICJ
”The islanders of Falklands, as you like to call they are had a government that is the Kingdom Together of Great Britain that Argentina stops it is an occupation it illegitimates. “
There is nothing illegitimate about it. The Falklands are not, and never have been, Argentine territory.
”What happened in 1833 was between Spain and Britain - nothing to do with Argentina. Learn a little ;-)
In 1833 their inhabitants were expelled by the force by Great Britain“
False, the inhabitants were not expelled.
”and Argentina was already Independent since I declare its independence in 1816. ”
A declaration of independence does not by itself establish independence. Argentina achieved its independence by force, without Spain's consent, an act of secession. In the case of secession, the territory of the seceding entity is whatever territory it can hold on to by force. Which did not include the Falklands
Y cambia de traductor. El que estás usando es una mierda.
dab14763 (#)
Mar 14th, 2011 - 05:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0He/she would thank you if you suggest me a good translator or the address of one it paginates of Internet to be able to lower it. Although I am studying the language, I lack a lot to learn and this way to share and to respond appropriately to your questions. Thank you...
Raul. You are being equally reductionist about the British Empire. Not everything was bad about it. There were a lot of positive things which came out of Empire. And please stop denying that Argentina is the result of colonialism. Argentina is 100% the result of colonialism. The vast majority of Argentines are of European descent. It's a fact.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just like people went to Argentina of their own free will in the past, people went to the Falkland Islands of their own free will. The Falkland Islanders are not the result of implantation. They are not implanted in any sense of the word.
“fact of the existence of a nuclear military base in the island”
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You sir, are a dumbass.
Raul. Sugiero Google Translate, que me funciona normalmente muy bien.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://translate.google.com
J.A. Roberts: A pleasure dialogue with you again
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is true what you say, there are positive things that left the English empire as likewise of the Spanish empire. I don't deny that we are part of a colonialism, but not of the caliber and the characteristics of the one that you observe. In spite of many cruelties the Spanish colonialism leaves us a religion, a language and a culture that it allows us to make autocratic of the cruelties made our Natives.
OUR NATIVES say because we try to cure the wounds that we have made recognizing our crimes.
The Falkland Islanders plows not the result of implantation. They plows not implanted in any sense of the word.
Product of this political Imperial of the United Kingdom Regrettably is the Islanders of Falklands and I eat consequence of they expelled it to the Argentinean inhabitants in 1833.
He/she should understand you that should have a repair of this expulsion that is the recovery of the sovereignty. You that it is difficult to understand this for you, but put on instead of the Argentineans that were expelled and I eat consequence the usurpation of the sovereignty of the country.
I don't seek you to be Argentinean, but it should recognize that the one claims it is exactly and it should have a fair solution that satisfies to all the parts without the threat of nuclear bombs on the table.
Thank you.
Raul,
Mar 14th, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well done! You are trying something VERY difficult. It is hard to write there things in your own language; it is MUCH harder to try to explain these very difficult things in another language.
We may not agree, but I praise you for your attempts to persuade me.
I know I could not do this in your language!
In my opinion, J A Roberts at #36 has a correct understanding of the problem.
Geoff.
32 Raul
Mar 14th, 2011 - 07:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We are neither English nor Argentinian. We are Falkland Islanders and we elect our own government.
The Governor is the representative of HMG, who are responsible for our defence and foreign policy. I think 'governor ' is an unfortunate term, because he doesn't actually govern.
I also think that if you colonised us against our will, that would be a crime. We don't forfeit the right to our basic human rights because of where our ancestors came from, 10 years or 150 years ago.
I know you don't like the presence of the military base. I don't know why you call it 'nuclear' because it isn't. However, it is here to protect us from you and is a legacy of 1982. Before that, there were 26 Marines, and we all preferred it that way.
Raul, Its not me who is confused- it is very simple- Are your ancestors originally from Europe? YES or NO.
Mar 14th, 2011 - 08:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they were - then you are 100% an implant in Argentina just as you claim I and others are in these Islands despite 8 generations born here.
It is very simple by the argument that you claim.
8 generations ago my ancestors were indeed colonists/implants. BUT they did NOT force out or take over lands that belonged to any natural indigenous peoples.
Here there were NONE - even recently arrived Argentines were invited and allowed to stay after 1833, It is a historical proven fact that those settlers were NOT expelled - only their military.
Furthermore it is a historical fact that the first recorded landing on these Islands - and thus first formal claim of sovereignty was made by England in 1690 - 120 years before Argentina existed as a nation.
Raul,
Mar 14th, 2011 - 09:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only people expelled in 1833 by the British were the members of the Buenos Aires garrison. Soldiers, not civilians. Buenos Aires was not part of the United Provinces in 1832 or 1833. It was at war with the rest of the United Provinces!!
This BsAs garrison had been protested by Britain through the correct channels. It was on the Falklands illegally. When BsAs did not remove the garrison, HMS Clio was sent to the Falklands - and the garrison left without a shot being fired. Peacefully.
No civilians were forced to leave, and in fact most of the civilians remained on the Falklands. These civilians were of mixed nationality, and none of them were born on the Falklands, however some of them ended up staying for a very long time and some of their descendants live on the Falklands today.
To say that the “Argentinian” inhabitants were expelled in 1833 is simply untrue. It is a myth propagated by the Argentine government, which has absolutely no basis in fact.
“and none of them were born on the Falklands”
Mar 14th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, there was one child in the population. José Simon, son of Jean Simon and Carmelita. Neither he nor his parents were expelled. Jean Simon was one of those murdered by Rivero and his gang. Carmelita had another son before the Rivero murders, Manuel Coronel, son of gaucho Manuel Coronel, who died on the Falklands an old man in 1840. Carmelita later married settler Richard Penny and had another son, Richard.
You know, thinking about it, why do you argentine bloggers want to own something you would be glad to get rid off, within a few years, even if you got the Falklands , the British would get the blame for everything that goes wrong on it, I think you only want it, because your government brain washes you into thinking you want it, but in reality if you got it, very soon after you would wish you did not have it,
Mar 14th, 2011 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0are you all blind to the troubles of the world today, see what is happening to countries that the people do not want the government to run them, see all the violence, is this what Argentina really wants, if so then this would be the quickest way to break up Argentina, if you think the islanders will just roll over for you, then take them be all means,
then the world will sit back and watch the violence unfold, it will cost Argentina billons to control the Falklands, you will need troops and all their equipment on the streets 24 hours a day, your navy would be on full alert, and your air force would be useless, extremist would almost certainly arm the Falklanders with weapons guns rockets mines the lot.
hundreds of your people would lose their lives, just how long would you put up with it, [now I may be dreaming] or pushing a point that will never happen.
but believe me, taking the Falklands against the will of the people, would be argentines second greatest mistake, [the first one was invading the islands] and look what happened, so hey I may be talking busht, but
Argentina will reap what it sows, so forget about the Falklands, and my imagination, and leave them alone to live in peace, you will never get them, and if you did [you wont want them] just my silly opinion.
don’t all shout at once ?????
Rolly wants to learn English, but he doesn't want to learn history, he'd rather stick to the Argentine version which is false. And can be proven to be so.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0Try this Rolly, and learn something -
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf (English version)
http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf (Spanish version)
There, that should help you with both :-)
17 GeoffWard
Mar 15th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0“The paramount right of the inhabitants are conditioned by their ethnicity/origins,”
Actually NO, they're just implanted UK citizens on Malvinas, Argentina.
So, you've got nothing.
But thanks!!
bye
As you are implanted spaniards ... much the same really.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 01:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not that the UN cares. It doesn't recognise any difference for 'implanted'. The UN has clearly stated that the Falklands is a 'colonial' situation and the solution for colonial situations is independence/self determination. Nothing else.
The UN won't help Argentina! Haven't you worked that out yet?
Fierro? Is that a native South American surname? Oh, no, I didn't think so... Sounds quite “implanted” to me, it sounds very Catalan no. Your ancestors weren't perhaps “implanted” by the Spanish querido Martinito?
Mar 15th, 2011 - 08:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://apellido.enfemenino.com/w/apellidos/apellido-fierro.html
Martin @ #47,
Mar 15th, 2011 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0you're right, Martin, I have 'nothing'.
I came to South America with two suitcases and made it my home.
But with respect to legitimacy of the F.I.s, International Law is all that counts,
and the indigenous population can make decisions for itself under this law and the law of the protectorate of the Territory - the UK . . . . .
and this might amount to choosing to be part of Argentina, if they so decided (Hence the importance to the argument of the self-governance and self-determination of the Falkland Islanders themselves).
United Nations counts for a lot in modifying national status and, with such a large number of minor nations (but with one vote each, just like a major nation) aligned to the beliefs of Argentina, this might be an avenue you would like to follow. It is unlikely to result in the transfer of the Islands to Argentina, as there are many such contentious issues around the world - for instance :
(i) the next war in the Pacific could be fought over the Spratley Islands, and
(ii) much of the USA would revert to France and Mexico - and, of course, England, and
(iii) Spain could reclaim Argentina and much of South America
. . . . . . all these dangers and illogicalities, if the UN rules and International Law were twisted to accommodate the Argentinian position.
On balance, I think the world would (and does) think it wiser to stick with the status quo.
50 GeoffWard:
Mar 15th, 2011 - 01:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0On the basis of the Argentinian claim that a state inherits all it's successors territory even if the state no longer owns said territory the USA could claim India, Australia, Canada and about a fourth of the worlds landmass.
47 Martin_Fierro
Mar 15th, 2011 - 02:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So, you've got nothing.
Really?
I think we have the Falkland Islands.
Zethee (51),
Mar 15th, 2011 - 03:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think you mean the UK, not the USA (I've often made the same mistake when my brain and typing-finger get out of sync.) ;
but, yes, this is one of the illogicalities that would be thrown up if we go down the Argentinian route.
34 dab14763
Mar 15th, 2011 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”What happened in 1833 was between Spain and Britain - nothing to do with Argentina. Learn a bit ;-)
Sorry, but you give the feeling that any response that does not agree with your opinion, again adjetivizar to “Learn a little.” Does exelso heres a graduate teacher or office foerin story?
It's nothing personal but you would have to “learn something” from the Argentine case. If you dig a little and contrast with other authors from other countries that are not Argentinos you would realize that our foundations are well founded.
“False, the inhabitants were not expelled.”
True expelled.
“And Argentina and was independent from that declared independence in 1816.”
A declaration of independence by itself does not establish independence. Argentina won its independence by force, without the consent of Spain, an act of secession. In the event of secession, the territory of the secessionist entity is any area where you can keep for themselves by force. That did not include the Falkland Islands.
Totally false. It's funny but your opinion is really twisted. It is true that Spain initially accepted but did not accept the Independence Quie empire of his subordinates from the beginning? The Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata always include the Falkland Islands.
For your tastes change as a translator.
Thanks.
40 GeoffWard. Thank you very much, I keep trying.
41 Monty69 (#) March 14, 2011 - 7:33 pm Report abuse
Raul 32
We are neither English nor Argentina. We are inhabitants of the islands and elect our own government.
With all due respect, are English. The mere fact of accepting the UK government do belong to that country. I apologize for the “Governor” is not what name you put in that position, but you are accepting the authority that comes from London. If you accept the control of his defense, foreign policy and also imposes an authority on the islands, you are accepting British sovereignty.
Is a misconception and only of colonialism. This obses
Anyway, why don't u both nations (Argentina & UK) sit down and discuss in peace?
Mar 15th, 2011 - 03:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think they can get on well with Argentines if they were kind, the same way we do, Argentina is a good neighbor
41 Monty69 (#) March 14, 2011 - 7:33 pm Report abuse
Mar 15th, 2011 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“We are neither English nor Argentina. We are inhabitants of the islands and elect our own government.”
With all due respect, are English. The mere fact of accepting the UK government do belong to that country. I apologize for the “Governor” is not what name you put in that position, but you are accepting the authority that comes from London. If you accept the control of his defense, foreign policy and also imposes an authority on the islands, you are accepting British sovereignty.
Is a misconception and only of colonialism. This obsession with colonialism. There are different shades of colonialism. We speak of colonialism because it violates the principle of territorial integrity in expelling the Argentine inhabitants of the islands in 1833.
“I also believe that if we colonized against our will, that would be a crime. Do not lose the right to our basic human rights, because our ancestors came from, 10 years or 150 years ago. ”
It is not re-colonize, but to restore territorial integrity and sovereignty removed in 1833. The British people can live on the islands, while respecting their culture and interests but Argentina vajo sovereignty, without any problem as the Welsh in Patagonia. The Welsh are fully integrated into society Argentina.
55 Jefferson's soul (#):
I share with you their opinion, the problem is that Britain does not accept to sit down and discuss in peace.
Argentina and South America (United Nations, UNASUR, OAS and Mercosur) have made repeated requests to sit together to resolve this issue and that Britain would abide by the international orders.
54 Raul
Mar 15th, 2011 - 05:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“It's nothing personal but you would have to “learn something” from the Argentine case. If you dig a little and contrast with other authors from other countries that are not Argentinos you would realize that our foundations are well founded.”
We know the Argentine case very well. It depends totally on the argument that Argentina inherited the Falklands from Spain. Which is totally false. Without inheritance you have absolutely nothing.
-“False, the inhabitants were not expelled.”
True expelled.-
Here is evidence that they were not expelled:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/14887706/Falkland-Islands-Population-Evolution
Argentina in 178 years has not provided a single shred of evidence that they were expelled, so I suggest you either come up with evidence or stop lying about it.
-“And Argentina and was independent from that declared independence in 1816.”
A declaration of independence does not by itself establish independence. Argentina achieved its independence by force, without Spain's consent, an act of secession. In the case of secession, the territory of the seceding entity is whatever territory it can hold on to by force. Which did not include the Falklands
Totally false. It's funny but your opinion is really twisted. It is true that Spain initially accepted but did not accept the Independence Quie empire of his subordinates from the beginning? The Viceroyalty of Rio de la Plata always include the Falkland Islands.-
What is totally false? Are you denying that the UP used force to achieve its independence? That they seceded from the Spanish empire without Spain's consent? If the Falklands were Spanish before 1816, then they were still Spanish in 1816, 1820, 1828, 1833 and after because Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its territories in the Americas until 1836, and the UP never established effective control over the Falklands during this period.
@32
Mar 15th, 2011 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...the existence of a nuclear military base in the islands that he/she threatens the Argentineans and South America in claiming ...”
Of the British nuclear weapons programmes:
Blue Danube was retired in 1962
Blue Peacock never got beyond the drawing board
Blue Steel was retired in 1970
Orange Herald was a test bomb that was used in 1957
Red Beard was withdrawn in 1971
Red Snow was withdrawn from service in 1972
Violet Cub was abandoned in the testing phase of development
Yellow Sun/Green Grass was replaced in 1966
Most of the WE.177 weapons were retired in 1992, the rest in 1998
Polaris was decommissioned in the mid-90s
That leaves only Trident, an SLBM. The S stands for Submarine.
This leaves us with three possibilities:
1) There is a British nuclear submarine hiding in one of the small lakes near Mount Pleasant (which is technically possible, the lakes are bigger (if only just) than the submarines are).
2) The British have developed a new type of vehicle, the land-submarine, sorta like The Mole from Thunderbirds.
3) It's not your mouth that you are talking out of.
Of these three possibilities, I know which I think is more likely.
dab14763: there is a HUGE difference regarding the Spain Empire.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 05:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their territories DECIDED TO BE FREE AS NATIONS. Of course Spain had to admit it, they didn't have any other choice.
That's what Falklands SHOULD DO.
Regarding OUR CASE, WE WON OUR INDEPENDENCE in 1811 between the claims of Spain, Argentina and Brazil. And now look at us! We are a prosper Nation and we get on well with our brother nations, Argentina and Brasil! Take us as a good example. It is totally pointless you are in the South American continent, claiming you are an european territory and not being friendly with us.
59- find us an Argentine Government that would accept Falkland Islands Independence - and we will go for it tomorrow!! Hadn,t you realised - Argentina is the one big thing that stops us from going Independent because they would not recognise it!
Mar 15th, 2011 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not that easy to do practically either with only 3000 people - but we would find a way - if Argentina would accept our Independence!
I think that you islanders are the ones isolated from the rest of the continent. And we are not persuade by anybody, but the “european attitude”, the idea of “we are better than you spanish speakers”, that's not friendly and that caused you are alone down here.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 06:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So my suggestion is, why don't you come in peace, and stop the aggression... You're always persuading us, everybody how bad argentines are but in fact you don't know them at all. Ok, some are not so good (esp. politicians) but the common people in Argentina is quite friendly! They've been very nice with us so do we.
Jefferson, Spain did not begin to “admit it” until 1836. Why do you think that several recognition treaties between Spain and various American republics make reference to the Decree of 4 of December 1836? The Falklands do not claim they are a European territory because they are not. The only British OT that is part of the EU is Gibraltar.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 06:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Regarding OUR CASE, WE WON OUR INDEPENDENCE in 1811”
Are you Paraguayan?
“and not being friendly with us.”
“and stop the aggression... ”
Falkland Islanders would love to be friendly with you. And the agression comes from the Argentine side, in case you hadn't noticed.
If the Falklands opted for independence would other countries in the region support them, or still take Argentina's side?
Your not a particularly clever soul Jeff.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only one creating the isolationist situation is Argentina, with her belligerent attitude, effectively trying to bully and cajhol the islanders into submission. Argentina has given nothing to warrant respect from the islanders, you have invaded, intimidated, insulted and threatened them for the last 50 years, you deny they exist and claim their land, homes wealth etc etc.
Its not exactly a pleasant situation, but its had the opposite effect, instead of meekly bending over to take it, they have grown economically and socially independent of Argentina, isolation frankly is far better than forced integration, at least you have a choice.
And its very hard to exactly be forthcoming about common Argentines, when a good % of them reckon that your (islanders) human rights and democratic right to choose count for shit in the face of a bizarre irredentist claim spurned on by nothing more than nationalist zeal and ego thumping.
European attitudes are democratic ones of consent, the current Latin American attitude is “he who has the biggest Dick wins”, so Ja, European attitudes are far more mature then the bizarre dick swinging that we call Latin American politics.
My suggestion is Argentina needs a change of tactics, instead of flexing your muscles and swining your dick in an attempt to intimidate the islanders and then whining like a little bitch to your mates when the above doesn't work....try being friendly, recognise you are talking to human beings, and not inconvenience's to your claim open up bilateral trade, and then you might be surprised.
What kind of independence are you talking about? Falklands or Malvinas are being under dispute since I was born, Argentina and UK are claiming for them. That's not independence when you are under a dispute.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know if any country in the region would support Argentina, not UK for sure, but you were claiming you are an extension of Europe to which I think it is ridiculous. I read that somewhere. What we hate the most is the attitude “Argies are bad bad bad bad people they make us crying, poor us”, we are not in the dispute, so we would like to be aside. Ok? And if any of us support Argentina is because we have treated with them and we really know who they are. They're not perfect, but we really get on well with them and I think all countries have a strong a good relationship with that country, I assume that makes things harder.
We don't want any troubles with Argentines, so please do not ask for support.
And what's wrong with being Paraguayan? Or am I supposed to be a white european citizen to post a comment? You proved I'm right, thank you.
@59 & 61
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'you are in the South American continent' & 'you islanders are the ones isolated from the rest of the continent'
You can't make your mind up, but if you take a look at any map, even the Argentine ones (ha), the Falkland Islands aren't a part of the South American Continent, they are an island archipelago in the South West Atlantic, several hundred miles from the coast of the continent.
Some of the Argentine people may very well be friendly, but a lot aren't, and they voted Peronist government in power, and they are a right nasty bunch of brown shirt idiots undertaking ALL the aggression, this is a matters of fact, we don't need to persuade anyone, all they have to do is look at the evidence and make their own minds up.
They may be your best mates (just watch out for their hands in your pockets when you're distracted), but we wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire, ok we might piss on them because that would be both ironic and funny all at the same time.
When have they ever claimed to be an extension of Europe Jeff? You really do talk rubbish! They claim to be Falkland Islanders and the islands are their home and their land, not anyone elses and they want the just recognition they deserve for that choice.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines haven't exactly attempted to be hospitable neighbours to the islanders, even you can see that, the islanders didn't invade Argentina in 82, the islanders didn't ban airlinks to Argentina, the Islanders don't spit on and make trouble for Argentine passport holders, the islanders don't scream bloody blue murder when an Argentine team takes part in international sports, the islanders didn't rip up several very important cooperation agreements in 2007 which they had worked tirelessly to secure.
Argentina is the neighbour from hell for the Islanders, maybe not Paraguay, but I suppose thats because you speak Spanish, are Latin American and haven't got a sovereignty claim on your head by the larger neighbour.
Jefferson, Who said there's anything wrong with being Paraguayan? I simply asked because you said you won your independence in 1811. There's no need to react agressively.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I don't know if any country in the region would support Argentina, not UK for sure, but you were claiming you are an extension of Europe to which I think it is ridiculous.”
I'm not a Falkand Islander. And the Falklands do not claim they are an extension of Europe, because they are not. What they are not, and never have been, is part of Argentina.
“And if any of us support Argentina is because we have treated with them and we really know who they are.”
Why don't you treat with Falkland islanders, so you get to know who they are?
“They're not perfect, but we really get on well with them and I think all countries have a strong a good relationship with that country, I assume that makes things harder.”
If Argentina treated Paraguay the same way it treats the Falklands, you'd think very differently.
“We don't want any troubles with Argentines, so please do not ask for support.”
Yet you say they should go for independence.
Jeff has already let the cat out of the bag by the reference to racism, it's I(diot), or one of his other names he's manufactured, it's Snr Vargas again, the Argentine racist ex-Pat living in Canada. I'd put money on it, if it were worth my time.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 068: Sorry, I'm not that one.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 07:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I'm not from Paraguay, but Uruguay.
And yes, they DID state that the islands are an extension of Europe. I read that somewhere, I thought it was not necessary to quote the source since it was on everybody's mouth.
But how come we can get to know an islanders if they never come to us? In fact, the only thing that they speak is “Argentina this, that” ... so we get bored easily, you hate them, I will never understand why so much angry, after all you kept the islands and you have lived there for such a long time. I dont think Argentina will take you away, so why bother to post over and over again the same comments? Why do you need desesperately the recognition from Argentina instead of the rest of the world?
I insist, what islanders need is to get free from UK and Argentina will stop claiming, I'm pretty sure they will. But the divorce from UK is like when you grew up and leave your parents' house.
And the comment “Are you paraguayan?” was Absolutely racist.
61 Jefferson's soul
Mar 15th, 2011 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'so we get bored easily, you hate them, I will never understand why so much angry, after all you kept the islands and you have lived there for such a long time'
You should educate yourself if you want to express an opinion on this matter.
Argentina has its claim to our country written into its constitution. To further its aims, it has banned charter flights to the Falklands, banned Falkland Island flagged vessels calling at most South American ports, stopped Lan making more than one flight a week here, refused co-operation over fisheries management, interfered with our sporting teams visiting South America, complained when our school children go on exchanges to South American schools to learn about their language and culture......can't be bothered to carry on.
If we are isolated, it is NOT OUR FAULT.
And that's why we hate them.
I don't care if this bores you or not. And we don't want your support. We just don't want you to join them in persecuting us.
“And I'm not from Paraguay, but Uruguay.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 10:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And the comment “Are you paraguayan?” was Absolutely racist”
FFS Jefferson, You said, “Regarding OUR CASE, WE WON OUR INDEPENDENCE in 1811” This was the case with Paraguay, not Uruguay. Paraguay declared its independence in 1811 and its independence struggles were mostly over by 1811. Uruguay did not achieve independence until 1828. Before that there was the UP civil war between Unitarians and Federalists, the Portuguese/Brazilian occupation, the Argentina - Brazil war. So there was nothing racist about me asking you if you were Paraguayan.
REHOYT. MONTY69.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have been searching more information about the opinion of the i. c. j., regarding the independence of kosovo.
In 2008 the general assembly from the u. n. solicited the i. c. j., an opinion about the independece of kosovo, anyway the u. n. was not forced to accept the thought of that institution, beside it didn't have any entail, but it's opinion toke a precedent.
However judge owada from the tribunal of the international court from the u. n., signalized the exceptionality of the kosovo case, he clarifyed that kosovo was a special case, and it didn't mean that all the sovereign disputes will have the same answer than kosovo.
On the other hand, like i said before, that case takes a precedent, we must see what happens in the future with the our cause, i dont discard that probably in a consultative opinion to the i. c. j. about the malvinas cause, it finally affirms that the my country can't keep on claiming for the islands, meantime time, argentina has legitimate rights to claim for the malvinas, and as long as you reject absolutly to find a negotiated and pacefull solution for the conflict, we will have maybe more problems, because you all know that we wont never drop on our claim.
I still don't quite believe Jeff's responses, he's the only one here to mention racism so my hackles are still up.
Mar 15th, 2011 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In any event, the only reference I can find about the Falklands being a part of Europe was some spin made by Argentina about the UK including the Carbon Dioxide emissions of the islands as a part of its own submission to the European Union.
This is something it is legally obliged to do having signed up to the Kyoto Protocol as a member of the European Community, and therefore included the Carbon Dioxide emissions of all British Overseas Territories, including the Falkland Islands.
This wasn't 'making the Falkland Islands a part of Europe' this was a legal obligation, as the Administering Power the UK is required to provide data.
Frankly, if you've believed the Argentine spin then you've been hoodwinked, since how else would the Carbon Dioxide emissions be reported for these territories, if not by the Administering Power?
So Jeff, it IS rather important to quote your sources, and yours it very much appears are just Argentine Propaganda.
As the whole basis for the Argentine claim is based on 1940s Peronist Argentine Propaganda, even the Argentines fail repeatedly to provide original sources for their assertions, all the quote is the works of others, and even the earliest 'works of others' have been proved by real evidence to be completely false.
As a Uruguayan, just ask yourself one question; why doesn't Argentina present its case to the International Court of Justice, the only place that can decide the matter, based on real and original sources of evidence? After all, they took Uruguay to the same place quickly enough over the building of Pulp Mills, you'd think they would have plenty to present to the Court regarding the Falkland Islands and SGSSI, but no, they don't, why is that?
I'll tell you why, they are lying, thats why. Go and ask them?
Then again, I still think you're someone else, and will be noting your responses closely.
Good morning all. I see that Rolly is still stuck on the ”We were expelled' lie, without offering any evidence at all the contary. Nice link Dab. He still won't believe it though. Amazing to me on how many Argy contributors rest their case on the opinions of people who want to sell them so called history books, but don't check the sources. If an opinion suits them they grasp it whole heartedlt without checking. Crazy people.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jeff's Sole appears to be mostly confused. Doesn't (again) quote sources that he heard somewhere because they're in everyone's mouth apparently. LOL Apart from that he seems to be getting his independencies mixed up.
Axel, I can see that at least you recognise the Kosovo case's importance. Contary to the opinion you have read it will set a precedent if only because it indicates the mind of the court. The way they think. And I know that your country will continue with its spurious claim, regardless of the evidence against it. I also know that the islands will never belong to Argentina. Which makes the continuing claim futile and Argentina look stupid. The islanders already have a solution. There is no point in negotiating because Argentina can only accept one solution. And that isn't going to happen.
When the islanders wish to be independent then the British will support them wholeheartedly. As long as they wish to remain with the UK then that's ok too.
So, this bright (if damp) morning the Falkland islands are British. God is in his/her (?) heaven, Bhudda's happy and I need a cuppa :-)
I should have continued with 'do you feel lucky punk, well do you?'
Mar 16th, 2011 - 12:53 am - Link - Report abuse 070: You don't want our support? But that's the only thing you have done in the last 30 years!
Mar 16th, 2011 - 02:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Supporters of the British claim
“The European Union classes the islands as a special overseas territory, subject to EU law in some areas, and eligible for some European funding initiatives. The inclusion of the islands in an appendix to the proposed European constitution provoked a hostile Argentine response.” France has been particularly supportive of the British position, and provided invaluable help to the British military.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/50703565/Sovereignty-of-the-Falkland-Islands
the paraguayan question was absurd and stupid... and what's the point in asking me where I come from? Is my opinon more valuable because I'm from the US than Paraguay or Bolivia? What's wrong with that? you should apologize for such ridiculous question, that obviously has nothing to do with the article
I just posted my opinion, but unfortunately for you it is neutral. I'm not saying that these Islands belongs to Argentina, neither UK.
I AM JUST SAYING what the rest of the world sees. I mean, in my opinion, since I was born these islands are being seen as a territory under dispute. That's what we were taught at School. I don't really care what's your point/reasons since I'm not interested
But you must have respect for other people's opinion. Especially if they don't want to be in such dispute. Of course, If I were you I would have a dialogue with the other person who claims and I would say “this is mine because this and this and this... so what do u say the opposite?”
If the problem is solved, I would live in peace in what I think it is my territory. Is that clear? And I think the Falklands must get their independence and not being the UK weekend's house. Be friendly and start communicating with the rest of Latin America.
And please do not come asking me if I'm peruvian or white or black or tall or catholic or whatever ... I am just a person, giving an opinion.
@Jefferson's Soul
Mar 16th, 2011 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I understand and respect your neutral position, but for you to suggest that the Falklands needs to start being friendly and to communicate with Latin America is incorrect. The Falklands has always had very good relations with Latin America, especially Chile. It is Argentina who have forced Latin America to turn its collective back on the Falklands and install policies to destroy the Falklands economy, they are the ones being unfriendly. All we want to do is live our lives peacefully, but it is Argentina are the ones disrupting the peace. I know this as I am a Falkland Islander and live in the Falklands.
Also to say the Falklands is the weekend house os the UK is also a poor choice of words. We are our own country, with our own culture and identity, I interpret your statement as that we are under control by Britain. We choose to be British. And the only reason why Britain has a military presence in the Falklands is to ensure our freedom is not taken from us again by anyone.
F*ck Latin America, the Falkland Islands are British because the people there wish it so. A bunch of banana republics, tin-pot dictatorships and flawed democracies hardly count. Forget what you learn't at school Jeff's Sole, it was wrong. They are called 'Lies for Children'. A concept where difficult subjects are simplified for consumption by the young or the stupid. You were lied to.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The British are in the south Atlantic ... and have been there longer than most Latin American countries have existed ... so get used to it. It's permanent!
well, what I told you is what we see from the other side. Of course we want to have good relationships with every neighbor but the rest of us who are not under this dispute doesn't want to be forced to support your side or their.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I insist on the dialogue as a way to solve conflicts.
Well you have shown no signs of attempting good relationships with the Falkland islanders .... so you can hardly insist on dialogue as a way forward.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for conflict, there is none. The Argentines have a dispute, the Falklanders/UK have none.
they cant get independence as they are occupying ilegally a land that has continental integrity with argentina
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0its like i go to isla gorriti i occupy it i put my friends and then i say its my sovereignity what would you think?? and they did things like this in many places UK has 14 territories with this problems
thay are not innocent they are here for the oil the antartida and the control of of waters of this part of SA they came to bother us
“F*ck Latin America??”
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wow thank you for your kind words, that's what I would call a well-educated answer.
Is that the way you establish relationships with other latin american countries, calling them “bunch of banana republics”?
Who's aggressive now?
I have no words for people who don't know the meaning of the word “respect”.
“the paraguayan question was absurd and stupid... and what's the point in asking me where I come from?”
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“N0, it was a perfectly natural question because of you wrote about your country's independence without saying what country it was.” It was a simple conversation piece. If you had answered: “No, I'm Uruguayan”, I would have said I'm English, but I've lived in Peru about half my life.
Is my opinon more valuable because I'm from the US than Paraguay or Bolivia? What's wrong with that?
There is absolutely nothing in what I wrote that even remotely suggests I think your opinion is more or less valuable because of where you are from.
you should apologize for such ridiculous question,
No, you should apologise to me for calling me racist. I, on the other hand, have nothing to apologise for.
that obviously has nothing to do with the article.
It has to do with what you wrote. Anything you write in a forum is subject to comment, question, criticism.
“they cant get independence”
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes they can Malen. It's their right under international law, under the UN Charter (ratified by Argentina) and under various UN Security Council Resolutions. Get used to it.
What is “continental integrity” anyway? Meaningless tosh!
“F*ck Latin America??”
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wow thank you for your kind words, that's what I would call a well-educated answer.
Is that the way you establish relationships with other latin american countries, calling them “bunch of banana republics”?
Who's aggressive now?
I have no words for people who don't know the meaning of the word “respect”.
70 You suggest that all would be well if only the Falkland Islanders would cut their ties with Britain.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is Uruguay in a position to offer any guarantees against continued Argentine aggression?
Do you think we were born yesterday?
Redhoyt, your comment is stupid and doesn't help Falkland Islanders in any way whatsoever.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I really doubt if calling LA “bunch of banana republics” would make things easier for making friends.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt, you are “bigoted” and “loutish”, I would never say “F**ck Europe” or whatever, it is pretty clear now that you don't accept a neutral position in this thread. So your isolation has a reason after all.
Redhoyt isn't a Falkland Islander.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 04:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0j-soul and others on the Arg side- So we are the bad guys as we do not want to be friendly to you and sit down and talk about the date to hand over sovereignty?-Dont forget in your constitution it makes it 100% clear that the ONLY outcome for Argentina is full sovereignty!
Mar 16th, 2011 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Who is the Bad Guy?
Who does the following?
A Government which refuses to publicly apolgise for its military invasion of 1982 and subsequent damage and breaches of the Geneva Convention on treatment of civilians
A Govt which refuses since 2003 all charter flights to the Islands that cross over its airspace, and overflights for any additional scheduled flights a breach of I.A.T.A. which Argentina signed along with many other nations.
A Govt which scrapped an agreement and refuses to discuss or co-operate on Environmental and Fishery catch controls in the South Atlantic - and now accuses us of overfishing!!!!
A Govt which threatened blackmail to 2 large multinational Sea Container Ship Companies - unless they dropped all business with the Falklands.
A Govt which promulgated a ban on the International right of free innocent passage for ships transiting the Straights of Magellan - if they were bound for or from the falklands.
A Govt which uses military harrassment of innocent civilian vessels to deny them the right of innocent transit passage through waters outside Argentina,s territorial limits but in her economic zone.
A Govt which pressurises smaller neighbours into closing their ports and airports if possible to communications with the Islands.
A Govt which categorically refuses to allow us - the people who live and have lived on these Islands for many generations - The basic Human Rights as laid down in the UN Charter.
A Govt who harasses and threatens Islanders who enter Argentina directly from the Falklands - eg via a cruise ship in transit.
A Govt which continually distorts Facts and promulgates Lies internationally to try and persuade others of its alleged “rights” over us.
I don't see how this will change anything. The Falklands people do not want to be Argentine. Why should Argentina be allowed to Colonise them? Argentina should be asking for their independence,.. if they really believed in what they say. Argentina just wants what is not theirs.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Islander1 and mertolemy:
Mar 16th, 2011 - 07:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is difficult for you, but you must understand that litigation is 1833 and its historical context. Imperial England winning a territorially and economically worldwide. Evidenced by the fact that all major steps and strategic locations in the world England's conquest by force. (Belize, Gibraltar, Malaysia, South Africa, Falkland Islands, Malta, Diego Gracia and we could continue with the bran continents, Asia (India) and continue with a litany of conquest, murder and extermination to maintain its fleet and freight mercantilism. .. The most regrettable thing is that now want to still maintain its world hegemony with the United States. Discuss the history of the two countries in dispute: England 500 years of existence and Argentina with just 200 years.
In this context denotes the conflict, it is difficult for you, I understand but it is, accept it. Always underestimate England to Argentina over the story and believed that the force simply resolve conflicts. For us, 1982 was a mistake but that does not defend our rights. Since 1833 he has been calling the theft, either with different swings and governments, and refuses to talk despite the majority of world public opinion demands it. Must respect the principle of territorial integrity as Argentine inhabitants were expelled from the islands in 1833. The claim we are only a government but of the entire Argentine people beyond governments. The claim is unanimous and transcends them all.
Argentina claims simply what belongs to him, justice and reparation.
92 Raul
Mar 16th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0243 words of lies and hipocrisy. This is what Falkland Islanders have to contend with.
# 88 ----
Mar 16th, 2011 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0then,don't deal with him like me !
Raul, In 1833 Buenos Aires province did not even go south of the Rio Salado (del Sur). The town of Azul was about as far south as the province got, so when you start to talk about conquest, you really have no leg to stand on.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The majority of current Argentine territory was CONQUERED from the native inhabitants AFTER 1870! Just ask yourself where Alsina built his zanja? The bottom half of the current Buenos Aires province, most of La Pampa, all of Neuquen, Rio Negro, Chubut, Santa Cruz and TDF were taken after Roca's Conquista de Desierto. And that's before we even start on the Gran Chaco, most of which was native territory until about the same time.
British imperial history is all very interesting, but don't forget that Argentina is itself 100% a result of imperialism and colonialism.
Raul, you never did answer my question before? Are you descended from European families - or native indigenous S American Indian families?
Mar 16th, 2011 - 08:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please answer this question - because if your family originated from Europe 100-200-250 years ago - then you are an Implant in a country that did not belong to your ancestors.
Historical facts make it 100% clear that all were NOT forced out in 1833 - why can you not accept historical facts?
Raul, your history is a bit shaky. England has existed for a considerably longer period than 500 years. If you can get that so completely wrong you cannot expect to be trusted on anything remotely connected to the British Family of Nations
Mar 16th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falkland Islands are British. If you tell yourself that before you go to bed for the next 20 years it won't seem so bad and you'll begin to accept it.
90 Islander1: Do you really think that calling us ”bunch of banana republics” to the countries that form LA is a good manner to establish a good relationship? Why don't you want to answer that question?
Mar 16th, 2011 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I insist, the user Redhoyt is bigoted and loutish.
98 Jefferson's soul
Mar 16th, 2011 - 09:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As I said, Redhoyt is not a Falkland Islander.
just passing lads.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0will go have a look at the new blogg.
this seems to be sinking into a personal thing.
Dab, my comment may be unhelpful but hardly inacurate! And Jeff's Sole, I'll give some respect to those countries when they deserve it. So far there's nothing that I see which is deserving of respect - for all the reasons listed by islander and a lot more.
Mar 16th, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina attempts to use force when it's claims won't stand up in a court of law. Bully boy tactics against a small territory and a people they see as different.
Bigot = “ A bigot is a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices, especially one exhibiting intolerance, and animosity toward those of differing beliefs.”
I'll agree with you Jeff's sole, but I'm hardly alone here.
Lout = “uncouth, aggressive”
Again, hardly alone.
And Dab is right, not a Falkland Islander .... but I am English, British and a citizen of the UK. And the more I read the crass, stupid assertions from the likes of Jeff's Sole, Rolly, Malen and others, who have no evidence, no argument but just keep repeating the same outlandish cr*p then the more loutish and bigoted I feel.
The British are in the south Atlantic and not just in the Falklands and it is no business of those tin-pot dictatorships, banana Republics or flawed democracies that occupy the south Cone !
one can again only refer you to [45] ?????
Mar 16th, 2011 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 098- please show me where I have indeed used that expression? I have a lot of respect for most countries in S America.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0#103
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt was out of order, the feigned outrage is hysterical claptrap to distract from the fact such racist tendencies are endemic in Argentina and her friends.
99 dab14763 I know he's not an islander and he doesn't speak for all of them
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0that's why I always wrote “the user Redhoyt is bigoted and loutish.”
And you have just defined yourself perfectly.
I'm pretty sure there must be polite people in the Falklands who are willing to discuss and share their opinions in a good way...
but this user doesn't know the meaning of the word “respect”. Shakira once sang “How do you live with so much hate” and I wonder how he deals with that everyday...
You cant take argentina serious ,all the neighbour countries are laughing,even a nobel price writer ,vargas Llosa is very critical of the actual argentne governement.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0The mebers of the governement are the worst of the argentine society,you have m Timmerman,all argies make jokea abouty him,they call him twitterman,the economy minister Boudou, he achieved nothing in the few years he ahs been in office,Anibal fernandes the cabinet chief,called the walrus ,he doesnt even now how to speak properly,the minister of security hilda garre an ex terrorist,how can you run a country wiht these kind of people?
Justin - my outrage is entirely heartfelt! Believe it!
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jeff's Sole - respect has to be earned. Familiary however breeds contempt! I've dealt with bullies all my life, too old to stop now. Argentina, Mercosur, Unasur are nothing but childish bullies. I am afraid of none of you. We, the British, are afraid of none of you.
I have come to recognise that debate does not occur on this site or, in other forums, with Argentines. Offered evidence they close their eyes and resort to rhetoric. Offered peace, they make demands. So no, Jeff's Sole, I have no respect.
Redhoyt
Mar 17th, 2011 - 02:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“I have come to recognise that debate does not occur on this site or, in other forums, with Argentines. Offered evidence they close their eyes and resort to rhetoric. Offered peace, they make demands. ”
Well said !!...........
-99 dab14763 I know he's not an islander and he doesn't speak for all of them
Mar 17th, 2011 - 03:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0that's why I always wrote “the user Redhoyt is bigoted and loutish.”-
Yet you ask Islander 1 to respond for something s/he hasn't said, implying that relations between FI and LA depend on what someone who isn't a Falkland Islander said.
-And you have just defined yourself perfectly.-
You have revealed far more about yourself in these exchanges than I have about myself.
Well, at least this thread has livened up some. However I would like to return to what I said, which has caused the sensitive amongst you so much agony.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 05:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... F*ck Latin America, the Falkland Islands are British because the people there wish it so. A bunch of banana republics, tin-pot dictatorships and flawed democracies hardly count. Forget what you learn't at school Jeff's Sole, it was wrong. They are called 'Lies for Children'. A concept where difficult subjects are simplified for consumption by the young or the stupid. You were lied to.”
Now it would appear that the first two words have upset the sensitive the most, so let us examine them for a moment. “ F*ck Latin America”.
Now perhaps I could have toned that down and said “Sod Latin America”, but perhaps still a little 'earthy' for some contributors sensitivities. I could have gone for, “ The opinions of Latin America are irrelevant because they are hardly good examples of democracy or freedom and only wish to seize what is not theirs.” Accurate but long winded.
Aletrnatively I could have gone for the Full Diplomatic Monty, “ We have no doubt about our sovereignty”, which is of course an FCO phrase for “FO”!
The trouble is that all these lack a certain something - passion!
Now my original phrase, “ F*ck Latin America ” has passion, is an accurate reflection of my view and, what is more, has the advantage of brevity.
To move on, the term 'tin-pot dictatorships' is adequate for those countries where the Constitution has been changed to allow an 'elected' President to go on .. and on .. and on! Banana Republic I used as a derogatory reference for most of the rest. As for 'flawed democracy' - well check out
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
you'll probably find yourself there somewhere.
As for the lies you've been told for decades - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
All in all, I stand by my post. Latin America can get stuffed!
The meek may inherit the earth - but not today :-)
Jeffersons Soul - No offence but you're Argentinian slip is showing.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 09:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0@110Redhoyt, feel better now that you've got it out of your system?
Mar 17th, 2011 - 09:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0You may be a bit abrasive but in essence l agree with your sentiments.
Argentine posters would have to be the most self-centred, insulting & lying people that l have ever(was going to say“met”)had anything to do with.
lslander1 @ 90, has said it all. did you read all that senor Jeff's Soul?
All very true. And you ask us to be friendly with a government & people like that. That would be like sleeping with a mamba or a boomslang.
Doubt we'll ever trust them for at least the next 10,000 years.
65 Wireless,
Mar 17th, 2011 - 10:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly you don't know what a CONTINENTAL SHELF is.
Maybe you think the water between continental Argentina and Malvinas is some magical causeway that takes you to a faaar... faaar away land, like... Narnia!
Maybe you're all demented too.
Malvinas are only 300 miles from the continent, and they sit ON ARGENTINA'S CONTINENTAL SHELF.
Go to school and learn something other than sheep shearing.
No Martin. They sit on their own continental shelf, and their continental shelf ends where your's starts, which is half way between you and them. Please get up to speed with international law.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 10:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Back to geography Martian, even though it has already been ruled irrelevant in international law? “ ... The United States also argued that Palmas was United States territory because the island was closer to the Philippines than to Indonesia which was then held by the Netherlands East Indies. The arbitrator said there was no positive international law which favored the United State's approach of terra firma, where the nearest continent or island of considerable size gives title to the land in dispute. The arbitrator held that mere proximity was not an adequate claim to land noted that if the international community followed the proposed United States approach, it would lead to arbitrary results ...”
Mar 17th, 2011 - 10:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Island of Palmas Case, (Scott, Hague Court Reports 2d 83 (1932), (Perm. Ct. Arb. 1928), 2 U.N. Rep. Intl. Arb. Awards 829)
The continetal shelf you refer to .. would that be the same one that extends south to Chile, or north to Brazil?
geography is no reasons .. do try and do better!
114 J.A. Roberts,
Mar 17th, 2011 - 10:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0The term “continental shelf” cannot be applied to an island by itself; hence the 'continent' part of the word?
Malvinas are two continental islands. “Continental islands are bodies of land that lie on the continental shelf of a continent.” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_Island#Continental_islands
If Malvinas were oceanic islands [which they're not] you would have a slim, miniscule, tiny little chance of making an argument, but you don't. “Oceanic islands are ones that do not sit on continental shelves.” [same link]
And you, are an idiot.
I rest my case.
Thank you
Martian, I've just presented proof that geography is irrelevant. Which, typically for an Argie, you've ignored.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The continental shelf is the South American continental shelf and it's presence is irrelevant to the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands.
It is you that now looks like the idiot.
Britain is on France's continental shelf. Perhaps you better email them and tell them, Martin. While you're at it you could let the Indians know that Sri Lanka is on their continental shelf.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0You complete plank.
117 Redhoyt,
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0Who cares what you think is relevant or irrelevant?
That crap about the Philippines and Indonesia doesn't prove anything, that wasn't even the argument. You're just trying to divert the issue to cover up how ignorant you people are.
J.A. Roberts was saying that Malvinas sit on their own shelf, they DO NOT as it would be a contradiction in terms. [a five year old could see that]
Indonesia? Who gives a shit...
“ ... This case is one of the most highly influential precedents dealing with island territorial conflicts ....”
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps you missed that bit :-)
#99 /
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0#120 is not British either !
Influential? To an impressionable idiot like you perhaps. I don't care.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0What a wast of time… arguing with a bunch of idiots who can't tell the difference between a continental island and an oceanic island, or an overseas territory and an independent state.
God... how stupid can you be?
Now this is what I mean when I wrote earlier. Martian is a typical Argie. He cannot stand the truth. He cannot stand to be presented with evidence that contradicts the story he has been brought up with. He cannot debate because he is mentally unable to deal with the arguments against his position.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0He is an idiot!
The Island of Palmas case would be raised in any international court that attempted to deal with Argentina's spurious claims to the Falkland Islands. It deals with the 'marks and signs' left by the British garrison in 1774 and also geographical congruity.
The British attempt to take Argentina to the ICJ in 1954 over SGSSI included papers on this very case. Therefore it is an important factor for any discussion on these pages.
Martian cannot deal with that. Argentines have rhetoric only. All gob, no substance ! Apparently Martian, you are extending the bounds of stupidity :-)
Yul, you're not worth the effort!
Argentina never ratified or accepted the 1958 Convention on the Law of the Continental Shelf for information. It didn't ratify its successor the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea until 1995.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Neither of which would give Argentina a claim on the Falkland Islands. The analogy of France claiming Britain illustrates the fallacy of the argument as does Canada claiming the French islands of St Pierre and Miquelon,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Pierre_and_Miquelon
They're only 10 km of the coast of Canada.
And in geological terms, the Falklands have never been linked to Argentina, they sit on their own microplate having broken off the East Coast of Africa, a totally different plate from South America, which when Gondwana fractured came off what is now the West Coast of Africa.
Source: Richards and Fannin (1994), Richards (1995 and 1997), Lawrence and Johnson (1995), Platt and Philip (1995), Richards et al. (1996 a and b) and Richards and Fannin (1997).
I rather suspect that God is asking Himself the same question about you, Martin! But, given that He is omniscient, He already knows the answer!
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0The salient point is that the **Exclusive Economic Zone** extends 200 miles from the coastline of Argentina AND 200 miles from the coastline of the Falkland Islands, so, when the Zones overlap, a line defining EEZs is taken along the mid point of the zone of overlap.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This separates the Argentine province of exploitation from that of the Islands.
The Argentinans only want the ownership of the Islands because it extends their Exclusive Economic Zone of sole exploitative rights and leases over many thousands of more square miles, because it would extend 'their' Zone two hundres miles beyond the Islands out into the Atlantic ie. 500+ miles of their shore.
This applies equally to South Georgia, the South Sandwich Islands, and all the other specks of land offshore of the Argentinian continental territory, and also claimed by Argentia.
Transfer of 'Ownership' to Argentina would extend Argentina's EEZ over 1000 miles offshore, covering hundreds of thousands of square miles.
Hence also the importance of who owns TdF.
Argentina has NO intrinsic interest in these distant Islands, per se; only as bases for present and future offshore exploitations.
Owning RIGHTS under international law is the name of the game - and, in this case, the law is explicit within the Law of the Sea Conventions, especially UNCLOS III.
Argentina and the UK - and therefore the Falkland Islands - are Signators.
Well JeffSoul/Martian and Raal etc? Funny that virtually all you guys are the same:
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Present them with a direct question - no answer!
Present them with Facts - no answer - just even more bloodlust and rhetoric!
Result? Clear evidence that for you life is just a saga of fantasy and delusion!- and you expect us Islanders to be keen to join it?
And I still insist, the user Redhoyt is bigoted and loutish and have no respect for other people's opinion.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Latin America is not a bunch of banana republics as he/she stated.
So why does Brazil is the 7th economy of the world?
“111 Be serious Jeffersons Soul - No offence but you're Argentinian slip is showing.”
Be serious: Read all my comments above and you'll see where I come from. I was just posting my point of view from someone who is not under the dispute, give all your arguments to Argentines, not me, I don't need them. Redhoyt only uses insults and wiki links edited by himself, of course I don't read any of them since I'm not interested in discussing if those Islands belongs to UK or Argentina. That's not my business.
One of the nice things about wikipedia, you can see who has edited the article.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Island&action=history
Don't see Redhoyt's name there. I don't consider his comments helpful or representative of islander's views. I might also have more sympathy with your comments if I were to see the same condemnation of hurtful and racist commenst that frequently stem from the Argentine contributors.
“And in geological terms, the Falklands have never been linked to Argentina, they sit on their own microplate having broken off the East Coast of Africa”
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0LOL
Microplate?? Africa???
Are you referring to the Pangea Continental Drift? 250 millions years ago? Before the continents were separated into their current configuration Malvinas didn't even exist. Your argument is beyond absurd.
And a Microplate, is a stand-alone, small tectonic plate... micro-plate. Take the Galapagos Islands for example, off the coast of Honduras. They sit on a microplate capable of moving independently of any other crustal plate. If you're part of a CONTINENTAL plate, you're not going anywhere unless the continent takes you with it. http://dictionary.sensagent.com/galapagos+microplate/en-en/
Malvinas clearly DO NOT sit on a microplate, there are no fault lines around them, they sit on a solid continental shelf. Argentina's continental shelf.
And now you're boringly stupid.
Looks like I hit a nerve with that Catalan called Fierro. I'm an idiot apparently. So be it, but not looking nearly the idiot he is now...
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The idiocy of the Catalan Fierro's statement that the “Malvinas are on Argentina's continental shelf” ie, for that reason they should belong to Argentina is exposed when you consider that the Islas Lennox, Picton, Nueva, Terhalte, Sesambre, Evout, Woolastone, Freycinet, Barnevelt, Deceit, Hornos, Grevy, Navarino, Hoste etc etc etc are all islands on exactly the same continental shelf - and they all belong to CHILE!!
I don't edit the Great God Wiki ... don't really know how.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And I cannot be representative of the islander's views because I am not an islander.
I am British, and maybe I can represent their views although that would be a great task.
I represent my own views.
I think you now know what they are :-)
131 J.A. Roberts,
Mar 17th, 2011 - 12:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Those island are just a few miles off the coast of Chile, who else would they belong to if not Chile? You can look at a map, copy and paste but you can't think straight for two seconds, apparently.
What's your argument now? That they don't belong to Argentina? Where does the UK fit in all of this 8,000 miles away?
Face it, you've got nothing. No argument, go home... back to England where you belong. And shut up.
Jeff's Sole, I am at least glad to see that you accept the comments about the tin-pot dictatorships and the flawed democracies .... even if you don't accept the one about banana Republics. There are few exceptions as far as I see it. Uruguay is the shining light but squeezed as it is between the big boy on the block and the wannabe (both flawed democracies) she can do little. I feel a tad sorry for Uruguay. Chile has some good aspects to, although mostly when its government is right of centre. Can't quite understand why Rapa Nui isn't on the C-24 list though. Brazil is big but she has a long way to go yet. I wouldn't hold my breath over the seat on the UNSC just yet!
Mar 17th, 2011 - 01:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Martian just cannot seperate fact from fantasy I see. However many times that he's told, with evidence, that geography doesn't matter he still goes back to it. 8,000 miles is not as far as 300 .... trust me!
Catalunya is quite a long way from South America too Martin, so you're just as much a fish out of water down there in South America. How many generations have your family been there? Three? Talking of arguments, I have not seen anything from you yet...
Mar 17th, 2011 - 01:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Those islands are also only a few miles off the coast of Argentina. Some of them are actually closer to mainland Argentina than they are to mainland Chile. Even so, your argument is still holed below the waterline. Just because the Falklands share a continental shelf with Argentina does not make them Argentine territory by any stretch of the imagination.
Anyway, for Falkland Islanders the Falkland Islands are home! For most of them that has been the case for 7, 8 and even 9 generations.
I see Martin, I provide references and geological facts.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 01:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You simply don't like them and claim they're wrong.
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.319..131M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.319..131M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.319..131M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.319..131M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.319..131M
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1986Natur.319..131M
If you're going to speak idiocy, don't be offended if we call you an idiot.
Talking of the Continental Shelf - http://www.derf.com.ar/noticias.asp?cod_des=407084&ID_Seccion=33
Mar 17th, 2011 - 01:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BHP Billington still has shares in the northern blocks, and exploration activities in Argentina. Be interesting to see how Cristina's government handles it :-)
Martin,
Mar 17th, 2011 - 01:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the separateness of the Falklands plate and the South American plate, which abutt each other, has been known since 1833 when Darwin determined the Falklands south african origins during the Beagle Expedition.
PS. This does not give South Africa the right to claim the Falkland Islands ;-)
Geoff.
I may be wrong about BHP Billiton as they appear to have sold up last year and moved out of Argentina? Can't find anything current. Anyone know which firms may be affected by this law?
Mar 17th, 2011 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dear Roberts:
Mar 17th, 2011 - 02:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the current Argentine territory was conquered the native inhabitants after 1870 Just ask yourself in Alsina built his ditch? The bottom half of the province of Buenos Aires, most of La Pampa, Neuquén all, Black River, Chubut, Santa Cruz and TDF were taken after the Conquest of the Desert Rock. And that's even before you start in the Gran Chaco, most of which was home territory until the same time.
It's true what they say, do not discuss this, but it was the previous formation of the country formerly the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, Argentina that conformed with jurisdiction over the Falkland Islands, Bolivia, Uruguay, Paraguay, southern Chile and southern Brazil and Argentina, however, had enclaves in the Patagonian during that period. I think your concept or meaning of conquest is different and serious that we handle over this forum to explain the nuances and differences of the case but that would not invalidate the legitimate claims of Argentina.
The history of the British Empire is very interesting, but do not forget that Argentina is 100% as a result of imperialism and colonialism.
True, it's very interesting history of the British Empire. As their legislation (comon law) for example but in Argentina and South America was not all a result of colonialism and imperialism (50%). Spain has the unique concept of ”kingdoms built on par with cities or Castile and Aragon. With their strengths and weaknesses in Latin America have left us a religion, a language and culture to enrich indigenous culture. Just read a bit like Bartolomé de las Casas on the concept. Instead, in my humble knowledge, England was not very happy with the gains. The slave trade and colonialism and mercantile fleet. The Falklands dispute is a result. But I keep the positive value of English culture.
Islander: I am a descendant of Europeans but we are talking about different things. The process of assimilation to these lands is different from the Falkland Islanders al
132 Red(neck)hoyt: And I know that islanders are better people like you, at least they have respect for other people's opinion, you should “apologize” for such stupid behavior and insults for all people who live in Latin America. Remember that the continent was build with immigrants from ..... wait, Europe? That's right, Spain, Portugal and Italy mainly (and Germany if he take into account the immigration post WW2)
Mar 17th, 2011 - 03:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So don't be surprised if the terms “bigoted and loutish” fits you so well after all. That's what you are!
Raul, you seem to think that Spanish colonialism was all beautiful and wonderful and British colonialism all bad. The truth is they were both bad and both had good aspects.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0British colonialism also left a legacy of language and culture, in fact the dominant global language and culture today.
Some truly horrific things happened under Spanish colonialism. The mines of Polosi for one. And don't forget that it was Spain who started the transatlantic slave trade. Does the “Asiento” not ring any bells? What's more, Argentina banned slavery in 1853. That was 30 years AFTER it was banned by Britain. You really should not bring slavery up, because you really don't have a leg to stand on. You are just as bad as anyone else.
Finally, Argentina did not inherit any territory from Spain. What is today Argentina was taken by force. There was no agreement with Spain. And that territory did not include the Falkland Islands, so no, you did not inherit the Falkland Islands from Spain.
I respect opinions when they are founded in fact, not fantasy. And apologise for what, saying it like it is?
Mar 17th, 2011 - 03:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And we all know where you've come from ... it's part of our argument! If you were entitled to independence and self determination then so are the Falkland Islanders.
And who disputed “bigoted and loutish” ?
At least I'll support my 'bigoted' opinions with argument, facts and legal opinion. You do not!
I will however give you some advice. If you are of a sensitive disposition and easily offended then this is not the site for you.
Rolly - Argentina does not have any 'legitimate' claims, it has a lot of 'illegitimate' claims. And if you cannot support your opinions with source material, proveable facts and legal opinion then you'll do no good here.
Islander: I am a descendant of Europeans but we are talking about different things. The process of assimilation to these lands is different from the Falkland Islanders also deserve their respect and consideration and interest. I accept the historical facts. But the historical context of 1833 should not be forgotten. England is in the process conquest around the world and we suffer in 1806.1807 and Forced return to England and France together trying to colonize. We are talking about the expulsion of inhabitants and the Argentine authorities in 1833 and to respect the principle of territorial integrity. We are talking about a historical injustice and reparations. If England abandoned its imperialist attitude and willing to open dialogue surely reached a reasonable agreement for all.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISLANDER. MONTY69.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 04:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ISLANDER: The argument of the article that had been incorporated to our constitution in 1994, which is signalized all the time by you and your compatriots, is really weack.
Our constitution can say whatever, however if the resolutions from the decolonization committe affirm that both sides must negotiate a pacefull solution, if they are renewed, like us or not, we will have to cede in some aspects of our claim, and you will have to do the same, none resolution argues that the solution to the conflict is the trasference of sovereignty to argentina.
On the other hand, we can argue that your side wants to deprive us of exercising our sovereign rights on the islands, because in your constitution it was incorporated the self determination for the islanders, that means that the only one outcome for you, is that we drop on our claim, ¿what kind of fair solution is that?. Nobody in this country wants to subdue you and your people, dont buy so easily the propaganda of your gov. like some of your compatriots do. In my case i recognize all the serious mistakes that my country made respecting our cause, i dont buy so much what our gov. affirms, but in some points it's right.
Beyond what what our constitutions say, as long as your side rejects absolutly to negotiate a pacefull solution, it's perfectly expectable that we have more serious problems in the future, because the malvinas case will always be important for us, the malvinas are not a caprice for the argentines.
Finally, when you read information in this website or in another, about my country, dont believe so easyly what they say, i dont deny that my country is not the best, but it's not neather the crap, or the disaster that you can read in the press, the articles are always oblique and very ignorant, on the other hand, read please my comment number 72.
MONTY69: Read please my comment number 72.
Raul, if the historical context of 1833 can't be forgotten then you must also remember the context we are in today. Aquisition of territory by conquest was acceptable in 1833, today it is not. Argentina was still adding to its territories as late as the 1870s - by conquest.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 04:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Today the context is multilateralism, the context is the United Nations age. Argentina must respect the fact that the Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination. Argentina is obliged, just as the UK is to ensure that this right is respected, that the Falkland Islanders can exercise control of their own future and their own resources. Argentina ratified the UN Charter did it not?
And please get your facts correct. The only people expelled from the Falklands in 1833 were the Buenos Aires garrison. Soldiers. No civilians were expelled. Four left voluntarily, but all the rest stayed. There was no “expulsion of the inhabitants”. This is simply untrue.
@113 Marvin, you are the only one that mentions sheep, maybe you own a pair of wellies and have some sort of urge we'd rather not know about, but in any event I don't live in the countryside and have no contact with your girlfriend(s).
Mar 17th, 2011 - 04:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0144 Its only different because it suits your purposes that it be different.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 04:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina - Established by mainly Spanish immigrants following the massacre of indigenous peoples.
Falkland Islands - Established by mainly British immigrants.
If you argue that Spanish immigrants have more rights than British immigrants then that would be racist and completely unacceptable.
Dear Roberts:
Mar 17th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If the historical context of 1833 can not be forgotten, then we must also remember the context that we are today. Acquisition of territory by conquest was acceptable in 1833, today it is not. Argentina continued to add to their territories as late as the 1870 - by conquest.
Never in the history of acquisition of territory by conquest was acceptable, especially for the subject and the dead who resisted conquest. You think that that is shaped and nurtured by the cultures they conquered and rewrite the stories in their favor. We humbly recommend a book writer, Eduardo Galeano, Open Veins of Latin America “and read the” other history ”understood the reason for our claims.
http://www.uncu.edu.ar/novedad/item/eduardo-galeano-recibira-el-doctorado-honoris-causa-de-la-uncuyo
NO Argentino added any territory, in contrast, lost southern Chile, southern Brazil (Rio Grande do Sul) and Bolivia and Paraguay became independent. Special case of Uruguay, as a result of being at war with Brazil, was created by British intervention there, and he was interested in commercialism and threatened to intervene in this way England came back to hurt us.
Understand that Argentina was facing at that time the Anglo-French intervention equivalent to today as if the United States and Russia combined.
And please get your facts straight. The only people expelled from the Falklands in 1833 were the garrison of Buenos Aires. Soldiers. No civilians were expelled. Four left voluntarily, but was all the rest. There was no 'expulsion of the inhabitants. ” This is simply false.
For us, unfortunately it is true, do not underestimate the historical fact, an invitation to retire with gun in hand pointed at his head is like a formal threat to both civilians and military, is indistinct. From any point of view there is no doubt that in all shades EXPULSION want both so kindly as threatening events. This is simply true,
Thank you very much.
Raul, actually, aquisition of territory by conquest was acceptable in the past to the people who lived at that time. It was the way things were done then. If you don't find that acceptable today, then that's your problem. It's also Eduardo Galeano's problem if he doesn't like it. What does not change is the fact that in 1833 conquest was a perfectly legitimate means of acquiring territory.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course Argentina added territory in the 1870s. Who do you think the territory south of Alsina's zanja belonged to? Please don't tell me Argentina!! That's a historical fact. The United Provinces did not reach down into Patagonia. There were exceptions, yes, like Carmen de Patagones etc, but the vast majority of Patagonia was not under the control of the United Provinces. That is a fact. It took Roca's Conquista del Desierto to achieve control over those areas. That is a fact. A very large part of what is today Argentina was taken by conquest from its native owners. Are you going to give it all back?
An invitation to retire with a gun pointed to their heads? No, I don't think so. A polite request to the garrison to vacate the Falklands (which was preceded by a protest made through the correct channels in BsAs). The civilians were not threatened in any way, it is a recorded fact that they were invited and encouraged to stay. Some of them were still on the Falklands in the 1840s and some of their descendants still live on the Falklands today! Those are the historical facts.
Here's a document I strongly recommend you read:
http://www.falklandshistory.org/spanish4.pdf
'Self-determination' and 'Decolonization' are often used as if they include one another or are otherwise interchangeable.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But they really have quite distinct meanings. Their implications for the people in non-self-governing territories (such as The Falkland Islands, where there is a Territory Governor) are different:
'Self-determination' includes the action of a people in deciding its own form of government; free determination of statehood, postulated as a right, and
'Decolonization' is the withdrawal from its former colonies of a colonial power, and the acquisition of political and/or economic independence by such colonies.
Thus,
self-determination involves choice;
decolonization refers to the end or the ending of colonial rule.
These issues are made explicit in the working paper of the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization, see: www.un.org/Depts/dpi/decolonization/regional_seminars_Pacific%2010/DP.1(Wolfers).pdf
So,
irrespective of the future for the Falkland Islands – Self-determination or Decolonization – there is ABSOLUTELY no place for Argentina in the future affairs of these Islands, South Georgia or the South Sandwich Islands.
149 Raul
Mar 17th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't get into a discussion about what it feels like to have a gun pointed at your head. There are people here who remember it.
Countries-Other than the UK possessing overseas territories in the Americas.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 09:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Observing the current- and 1980's- misbehavior of Argentina
It seems highly hypocritical and counterproductive to the process of evaluating and forming appropriate opinions regarding the
Argentina-initiated Falklands fracas that developed and developing world countries' politicians, news media and commentators are not raising the fact that there are many, many countries other than the United Kingdom that still possess 'overseas territories'... and, as a general rule, these countries are not faced with demands from countries bordering or near their overseas territories to relinquish these territories...
In the rare situations that such demands have been made during the last 60 years, the usual response, for example from countries like France, has been abrupt 'indignant' dismissal...
http://www.st-pierre-et-miquelon.com/english/index.php
How would Nova Scotia's, Newfoundland's and/or Canada's allies view their demanding for-themselves a postage stamp sized piece of territory that for-over-two-centuries has been France's overseas territory?
What if Brazil or Suriname decided that it was inappropriate for (South America's) French Guiana to remain a France overseas territory and demanded French Guiana for themselves- would France just say 'OK' and leave French Guiana .
As long as Central and South American countries continue their decades-long policies and practices of open-armed welcome to and cooperation with countries other than the UK that have 'overseas territories' in or near the Central and South American land mass- the UK's claim of rights over and responsibilities for the Falklands can only be hugely strengthened...
UK, British Commonwealth and supporting countries' politicians- as well as UN officials- ought to be raising the examples of Saint-Pierre and Miquelon and French Guiana when commenting on and (if ever) deliberating the Falklands and neighboring islands situations...
Raul, thankyou for your reply and for being honest. Now under your classification we are both “implants” then agreed?
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But one difference. Your implanted ancestors forced themselves by murder and race extinction into the lands now called Argentina.
Mine did not kill anybody. They came to a land where there were no indigenous native people. They cane to a land their country had first claimed and raised its flag over in 1690-well documented. In that land in 1833 were a few people from the United Provinces who did NOT have British permission to be there - those settlers were offerred the right to stay and settle under Britain - and some did - again a ducumented fact with evidential proof from censuses a decade or so later.
Now you tell me - based on your type of argument as to who and what is an “implant” - which of us has the better right to claim our respective countries for our own?
and why dont you sit at the UN and humiliate argentina???
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0our country has a long history of 6000 years indiginous then mestizos criollos and inmigration
the occupation of britain was ilegal in 1833
redbitch hat i think you are repeating the same crap over and over again and malvinas is an issue of all SA your presence here will affect all of us, we dont want extracontinental people in SA, and if we are banana republics flaw democracies or whatever is our problem we live here not you!! you instead can go to serve in afghanistan war or in irak and kill millions of innocent people in a ten years stupid war
J.A. - the expulsion myth is a foundation stone of Argentina's spurious claim. Without it their argument begins to unravel so it is unlikely that Rolly will either educate himself by reading what you offer, or accept the truth even though the evidence (Sarandi's log, Darwin's diary, etc) clearly shows up the Argentine lie.
Mar 17th, 2011 - 11:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone of reasonable intelligence in Argentina must know that it is a lie because the evidence is so easily found. Therefore they must prefer to go with the lie! And they want respect??
155 malen
Mar 18th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0''we dont want extracontinental people in SA, and if we are banana republics flaw democracies or whatever is our problem we live here not you!!''
What on earth are you talking about? How is an 8th generation Falkland Islander , or a 1st generation one an 'extracontinental person'. We do live here, we don't have anywhere else. SA is our home as much as it is yours.
I'm hoping your post gained its racist overtones in translation and you didn't really mean it.
madone - what I repeat is the truth. Can't you handle it ?
Mar 18th, 2011 - 12:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0and red bitch hat go to UN and prove all you say its easy
Mar 18th, 2011 - 01:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0you hate us argentinians and latinamerica and caribe redbitch hat have you ever been here?? (post 78)
Why on earth would I wish to go there? If I want to see spanish culture then I'll go to the source - Spain.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 01:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0And I don't hate you. I despise Argentina and have little regard for the majority of Latin nations. As I've said I'm impressed with the likes of Uruguay and Chile is prepared to go its own way, at least when its government sits a little to the right of centre. As I'm anti-socialist that puts the dampers on my opinions over much of the rest.
As for the UN. Until Argentina gets the cojones to go to the ICJ we have no opportunity to prove anything. When/if they do .. then we will .... easy!
Martian - fishing is OK, the licences pay the FIG well enough :-)
What's a “fig”??
Mar 18th, 2011 - 02:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that your sex toy?
Falkland Islands Government - get to know the term, it'll be around for a long time :-)
Mar 18th, 2011 - 02:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0you need to get evidence here and then compare with spain to really know what you are talking about
Mar 18th, 2011 - 02:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0.......fantastic latin american region i should say with many contrasts, but who doesnt have them?? i think brasil is changing and becoming economically stronger has to deal with many things yet
im not racist but if you think my comment is abusive report it
after all the things that have been said here........im expressing that i dont want the domination of an extracontinental nation in SA
Whatever Redhot, don't try to hide it... it's a sex toy.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 03:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't think there's any fear of domination Mad'un. and Britain isn't in South America ... it is in the south Atlantic. Looking after its property and its people. Been there longer than most South American countried have existed.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 03:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0Martian, you childishness and idiocy knows no bounds ..... your youth is showing :-)
I was watching the UNSC pass its vote on UNSC Resolution 1973, and I was half expecting Argentina to stand up and start an irrelevant whine about their 'claim'...
Mar 18th, 2011 - 05:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina would have abstained, I'm sure of it, because it can't go supporting Self-Determination where it contradicts the Sovereign Territorial Integrity of another nation, in this case Libya. The Peronists would rather watch Benghazi being bombed by Gaddafi in order to stick to their Big Lie.
Columbia was present and did vote for the Resolution, so good on them.
“Keep fishing asshole, you still got NOTHING.”
Mar 18th, 2011 - 08:04 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is that what you implanted Catalans class as “argument” Martinito? Keep fishing? For what? I've landed my catch already...
FIG a sex toy? Is this because they are forever shafting Argentina...;-)
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whats the matter, Malen? Are you worried that the Falklands will invade South America?
Mar 18th, 2011 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina did not get a vote, as she is not one of the [15]
Mar 18th, 2011 - 01:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0those in favour [10]
UK
usa
France
Lebanon
Bosnia and herz
Colombia
Gabon
Nigeria
Portugal
south Africa.
[AGAINST O]
ABSTANED 5
Russia
china
Germany
India
brazil
////////////////////////////
Argentina was considered to immature and unstable years ago,..
Still is !
Mar 18th, 2011 - 02:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0isolde le tienen unas ganas a la patagonia y a tierra del fuegoooooooooo
Mar 18th, 2011 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you are now claiming antartida, also more maritime territory than before 1982 so its not difficult to think you come for more
you are having a nuclear sub typhoons troops vessels to control and threaten us you blockade us for using waters and ports you do want to dominate my dear
Dear Roberts:
Mar 18th, 2011 - 02:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In fact, the acquisition of territory by conquest was acceptable in the past for people living at that time. It was the way things were done then. If you do not find acceptable today then that is their problem. It is also Eduardo Galeano problem if you do not like. What has not changed is the fact that in 1833 the conquest was a perfectly legitimate way of acquiring territory.
Perhaps you justify violence as the way to solve conflicts.
Do not you ever think that the problem of Eduardo Galeano may be your problem?
I humbly suggest you read again that even a few lines of this author and you'd realize a lot of things you never think that behind all this litigation. As I said before, not everything that comes from the English culture is true, not everything that glitters is gold, give him a chance to what I always believed as true may be false.
Ever give credit to the other stories, other cultures and ways of thinking. You'll get a surprise and elevate your wisdom.
I read your document, Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepperde and I think you comment on my opinion above. Reactionary pamphlet is a response to the Argentine Seminar December 3, 2007.
The biggest problem the thought of Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper, is the single thought that is intended as I say, nothing else interests me., Be it in politics or imperialism in economic neoliberalism. All you think otherwise is wrong or lying, even though the evidence and arguments are undeniably true. They have eyes and understanding but do not want to see or understand the true context of conflict: the Anglo-Saxon Imperialism undercover in today versus legitimate claims removed by force in 1833. Argentina never failed to claim in history despite being pointed a gun before (1833) and currently threatened with nuclear bombs ...
Cisneros's answer is very good, consistently responds to Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper Mercopress in his note on February 12.
Here is a document that should read:
http://en.mercopress.com/2
173 “Threaten” you say - one of your Argentinian colleagues denies that absolutely. She says UK are bullies and nuclear armed but is adamant UK doesn't threaten or at least she has never accused us of same. Mind you, she is only first generation and sulks away in stolen Patagonia tending her goats.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 03:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul,
Mar 18th, 2011 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course I do not justify violence. Where did I do that? All I stated is the simple fact that in past centuries conquest was a legitimate way to acquire territory. That is undeniable. During that time even Argentina itself played by those rules. The majority of Argentine territory was acquired by conquest. That is a simple and undeniable fact.
Today in the UN age it is the UN Charter and UN Resolutions which determine how states should behave. Not conquest by violence, something which Argentina tried in 1982, breaking every rule in the book.
I'm sorry, you lost me regarding the Pascoe/Pepper document. I'm not sure what on earth you are trying to say - and as for some kind of Anglo-Saxon Imperialism, I think you are being slightly paranoid.
Dear Roberts:
Mar 18th, 2011 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Most of the Argentine territory was acquired by conquest. That is a simple and undeniable fact:
It was the Spanish themselves who set the limits of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, which was subsequently Argentina was reaffirming its territory inherited. Us with time and with the areas we were occupying and populating what is rightfully ours, this is a simple and undeniable fact.
Sorry, I missed about the Pascoe / document pepper. I'm not sure what on earth is trying to say - and as some kind of Anglo-Saxon imperialism, I think they're being a little paranoid.
You're right, I could not express well, it may be a bit paranoid, but given that impression, just wanted to tell you that I read your link and thought of Graham Pascoe and Peter Pepper s is the single thought: Everything you think different is wrong or lying, even though the evidence and arguments are undeniably true. I recommend this article.
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/02/06/unilateral-facts-indeed
Not conquered by violence, something that Argentina tried in 1982, breaking all the rules in the book.
I reproach him for 1982 and if it is true, and if you comply, I apologize for it in 1982, is not something that we can be proud, but also occurs with 30,000 missing, with the participation of the United States and England. But do not forget we also wanted to invade England in 1806 and 1807 and the “return of obligations” in the government of Juan Manuel de Rosas and since 1833 we are waiting for the dialogue that never comes. I hope that Great Britain respecting the United Nations resolutions calling for dialogue between the parties.
136 JustinKuntz,
Mar 18th, 2011 - 06:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All your links come from UK sources. What are the odds? ;-)
Bullshit
#178
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So what if they're British. So now you allege the British falsify geology?
Ever heard of peer review in academic literature?
No of course not, Argentine history could never pass peer review.
All this about waiting for talks ever since 1833 - I seem to recall that talks had been going on for some time - then somebody slammed the door on talks and negotiations on 2nd April 1982 and resorted to military brutal military force.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Then, because they got their just deserts - 29 years on they cry “it is not fair - the nasty British will not talk to us about our wish to take-over”!!!! What a laugh.
“It was the Spanish themselves who set the limits of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, which was subsequently Argentina was reaffirming its territory inherited.
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raúl, the only place in the Falklands Spain established any effective control over was Port Louis. Everywhere else effective control was established by Falkland Islanders. After 1833. It is legally impossible to inherit from Spain more than what Spain possessed.
It is also legally impossible to have inherited territory from Spain in 1816 when Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its territories until 1836. For there to have been an inheritance to Falklands, Spain had to have ceded Falklands to Argentina, and Spain never ceded the Falklands to Argentina. In 1859 Spain was no longer in possession of anything in the Falklands, so it was not in the position to cede anything.
”Us with time and with the areas we were occupying and populating what is rightfully ours, this is a simple and undeniable fact.“
On the contrary, it is very deniable. Argentina had no prior rights in the Falklands. Spain had ceded none to it. Between 1816 and 1833 not enough time had passed for Spain to lose rights to Argentina by prescription, nor had Argentina established any effective control in the Falklands to establish any rights that way.
”I recommend this article.
en.mercopress.com/2011/02/06/unilateral-facts-indeed”
I recommend all the holes we poke in Cisnero's arguments.
and the whole exchange
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/21/unilateral-facts
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/21/unilateral-facts
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/21/unilateral-facts
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/21/unilateral-facts
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/01/21/unilateral-facts
173 malen
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'you are having a nuclear sub typhoons troops vessels to control and threaten us you blockade us for using waters and ports you do want to dominate my dear'....???????
Noooooooo!!! What crazy parallel universe are you living in?
Why would Britain want to threaten you? What have you got that could possibly justify the expense? Britain is here to defend us. That's all.
And you are the ones blockading us, aren't you? We don't want to dominate your ports, we just want to use them. Actually, we just want to use your neighbours ports
Raul,
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina took its independence by force and unilaterally. It did not inherit anything from Spain, so whatever “limits” Spain set for the Viceroyalty are completely irrelevant. Anyway, the Viceroyalty did not include Patagonia. The Viceroyalty did not go much further south than the Rio Salado del Sur. Spain never had effective control over Patagonia (apart from small exceptions like Carmen de Patagones, Puerto Deseado but these were fortified, the country around them was not controlled), so the Argentine actions in the 1870s still amount to acquisition of territory by conquest from whatever angle you look at it.
I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make about Pascoe/Pepper. One thing about the Pascoe/Pepper pamphlet is that it is very carefully referenced to original and contemporary sources - many of them in the Archivo General de la Nacion. You can't say the same for Cisnero's efforts and many of his facts are demonstrably incorrect.
Why are you trying to mix the desaparecidos in with the Falklands war? What is the relevance? And 1806 and 1807, what is the relevance of those years? Argentina did not exist until 1810 (or 1816 according to another view).
And no, you have not been waiting for dialogue since 1833. Argentina dropped its claim to the Falklands in 1849 when it ratified the Convention of Settlement. The Falklands claim was not raised again until 1945, well not through the correct channels at least. The claim was not mentioned in Messages to the Argentine Congress from 1850 until 1945. So your statement is simply untrue. The dialogue called for by the UN is to settle differences regarding sovereignty not dialogue about a transfer of sovereignty. There is a difference. There is nothing in any UN resolution which says the Falklands must be transferred to Argentina.
Raul,
Mar 18th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0regarding 1833, would you be kind enough to look at :www.flickr.com/groups/malvinas/discuss/72157626157758043/
There is a book by the well-known Argentine historian Ernesto J. Fitte, La Agresión NorteAmericana a las Islas Malvinas, Emecé Editores, Buenos Aires, 1966.
Contained within the scan are two pages from this book.
I think you should read it...
By the way, my apologies this has already been posted elswhere on Mercopress..
Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands
173 malen
Mar 18th, 2011 - 11:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“you are now claiming antartida,”
So are you
“also more maritime territory than before 1982”
So are you
“so its not difficult to think you come for more”
The UK is not claiming any territory against the wishes of its people. Unlike Argentina.
“you are having a nuclear sub typhoons troops vessels to control and threaten us”
No, they are there to defend the Falklands from you.
you blockade us for using waters and ports you do want to dominate
No, the restrictions on Argentine civilian vessels sailing Falklands waters or trading in Falklands ports were placed by Argentina.
Mad'un - the British were in Antartica long before Argentina, so it is Argentina that is the johnny-come-lately. What we have we own, and we'll keep!
Mar 18th, 2011 - 11:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Boys, Rolly isn't listening. He effectively states that Pascoe and Pepper's document is all lies without offering a shred of evidence to support that claim and then tries to set the whole thing agaianst some paranoid concept of Anglo domination. Sorry, but first impressions to the contary, he's as unthinking and as daft as the rest!
In these idiots defence I should remind everyone that they are indoctrinated into the Big Lie from birth. Brainwashed. I have been playing with some translation software and looking at the Argentine news am amazed at how many streets, barrios, stadium, factories, buildings, hospitals, etc, etc have the name ArgentinosMalvinas (or whatever) - total submersion is just a form of brainwashing I recall.
It is no good trying to debate with these fools, they are incapable on idependent thought. The only thing that Argentina appears to respect is the big stick. In the Falkland Islander's defence we should wave it ..... often!
173 malen (#)
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0you blockade us for using waters and ports you do want to dominate my dear,,
the blockade was done by your boss Christina, as she represents Argentina, then I take it,, ,it is Argentina that is blockading the Falklands,
but perhaps we brits have misunderstood, perhaps Christina is British, and the British are blockading themselves,, I just wish we were as clever as you Argentineans, mmm
ENOUGH! AS AN ARGENTINE, I OFFICIALLY STOP ALL CLAIMS TO THE ISLANDS. I'm not exactly in the Government so my say won't matter much, but at least I'm putting it out there: I don't want the islands. I don't want to invade them, or make the Islanders Argentine. They can keep them, and they can remain British! Yay!
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0There. All of you can stop saying ALL ARGIES THIS, ALL ARGIES THAT. You now know at least one exception. (there's a lot more than just me, unfortunately they don't appear here much i don't think). I back the Rugby Without Borders approach.
TO BRITON: Cristina is not our boss. There's a huge difference between an official elected by a majority, and someone somehow representing every aspect of Argentine politics. She certainly does NOT represent all of Argentina, its extremely varied people, and our extremely varied political views. We're not all behind the Falklands cause over here, there are exceptions--just like Argentina is FULL OF BRITONS, by the way ( an ubiquitous lack of awareness about that extremely interesting piece of history among some bloggers here which is baffling frankly).
You're really Argentine?
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0I rather expect you'll shorly be denounced as a splitter by our resident trolls.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iS-0Az7dgRY
The obligatory YouTube clip.
“I back the Rugby Without Borders approach. ”
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Refreshing.
IGpryor if you are what you say you are (and Think won't believe it for a second, but then he's a 1st Generation Argentine, and they're always so much more desperate to fit in it seems :-), then I'll continue but make an exception for the 'rest'.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0It would be good to know that the idiots on here are not truly reperesentative of Argentines!
Redhoyt I've been there and they're really not. The trolls here are from
Mar 19th, 2011 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0www.malvinense.com.ar
If you can read Spanish, they plot their assaults here in the forums. The conspiracy theories on HMS Invincible are a scream.
Sorry but Merocpress attracts the nutters.
That's a worry ... it attracted me too :-)
Mar 19th, 2011 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0(188) IGpryor
Mar 19th, 2011 - 07:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0IMHO:
ENOUGH! AS AN ARGENTINE, I OFFICIALLY CLAIM THE ISLANDS.
I'm not exactly in the Government so my say won't matter much, but at least I'm putting it out there:
I do want the islands. I don't want to invade them, or make the Islanders Argentine. They can stay there, but Britain has to go. Yay!
Think, knew that you wouldn't be far away. Can you see the silliness that has been put in Malen's head? She thinks that we are going to invade South America.................mmmmmmm, not such a bad idea at that! only joking!!
Mar 19th, 2011 - 07:56 am - Link - Report abuse 0@173Malen, naturally my dear, we want to SHARE in Antarctica's resources. Don't you want us there? Do you think that they belong exclusively to Argentina? how greedy! Don't give me that rubbish about its “your Argentine sea” you only own 200kms out from your shore (unless it overlaps).
The British military is in the South Atlantic to protect us from YOU.
@194 Think, you've changed your tune, so now we can stay? Oh thank you so much sr Think.we can stay!, we can stay!, we can stay, oh goody goody gumdrops
(195) Cher Isolde
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
” Can you see the silliness that has been put in Malen's head?”.
I say:
Can you see the silliness that has been put in Typhoon’s head or Briton’s head or Frank the Yank’s head or……………………………………….?
You say:
”Think, you've changed your tune, so now we can stay? Oh thank you so much Sr. Think.we can stay!”
I say:
I have played the same tune since my very first post in here……..
If you stopped your unconditional allegiance and sell out of the area resources to Great Britain, yes, you could stay…..
No need to thank me. Thank a generous Argentina.
JUSTINKUNTZ: I know that my view probably seems ridiculously “unargentine” (whatever that means), but frankly I'm very passionate about the whole subject and thats why I'm here. Yes I'm an argie, and yes I even have an uncle who was a conscript during the conflict for Argentina. But I came to post here because I know that my viewpoint would certainly be refreshing. What I really can't stand is for an entire people (the argentine people), a concoction of cultures, to be characterized here in this blog as a bunch of (and yes I quote) “banana republic maniacs” whose Latin blood (whatever that means!) has made their country a disaster..and so on and so forth, all due to a few of us (or many) that write things like “The islands are ours, go f&@k yourselves all British people”. To simplify, I guess it's very important for me for it to be known around here that Argentina is quite full of civilized people, not necessarily Latin because no doubt many other peoples have made Argentina their home, that have a much better understanding of our history and our future to aimlessly claim the islands and insult ignorantly an entire nation (the british) with whom we actually share quite a bit (and thankfully so).
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0TO REDHOYT: You have a particular propensity to insult Argentina as a whole, with complete disregard for its many intricacies as a nation of immigrants, and of educated, civilized, loving people. I don't want to place blame on you, because I agree that in this particular blog you have surely met a lot of nutter Argies. I'm sure that as I can comfortably understand the British perspective, and can give this matter its due rest, you can understand the craziest of the Argies and their blind passion. Even they do not understand the dictatorship's manipulation of the issue for their personal advantage. Perhaps even more important, is the simple, painful notion of having fought and lost for something which was dear to us, which they likely experience still so vividly.
#197 My comments were slightly tongue in cheek. A word of advise, don't give out personal information here. Think and his ilk like to stalk people to deter them from commenting.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 09:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wouldn't say your comments were “un-Argentine”, though sadly you can expected to be denounced either as a fake or a British stooge. I'm not sure I'd classify what they exhibit aas blind passion, more a case of religious mania; they're just as blind to contrary evidence.
I. f you stopped your unconditional allegiance and sell out of the area resources to Great Britain, yes, you could stay…..
Mar 19th, 2011 - 10:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islanders can have allegiance to whoever they please. Regarding resources, with the fisheries it is mainly the Spanish fleet, Falklands' own fleet, and Asian fleets that are involved in the fishery, not the British fleet. Regarding oil, there is no extraction as yet, so there is no sell out of area resources to Great Britain.
If oil is found in commercial quantities, the UK won't necessarily be the only country where the oil is sold. The oil extracting companies might sell in other countries where there's an interest. If Argentina has a problem with any of the oil going to the UK, it can always make an extremely generous financial offer to the companies and buy the entire production.
IGpryor - thank you. I do know how to wind people up, spent a lifetime learning it but I bow before your reasonableness. Your kind has not been seen here before! And I don't think I've ever used the term 'maniac'. 'Banana Republic' most assurdely, 'Flawed Democracy' certainly and Tin-pot Dictatorship most definately although that particular one does not apply to Argentina ... probably! But not 'maniac', I'd remember :-).
Mar 19th, 2011 - 10:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0It is sad that the “ ... something which was dear to us ...” should ever have been dear to you as it was never yours! Which is, of course, what these threads are all about.
So how come none of you 'reasonable' Argies have ever got to be politicians or to run the country ?
@196 Think, but l do thank you, Cher Think. Not so long ago you were going to boot us off these islands,“Repatriation”, l think was the word.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Idiots like I & Martino & Marcos were all for tossing us out.
Now it appears that if we do your wishes, then we can stay------well, “go whistle Dixie, buster” as our American cousins say(yes l do have them).
We are here to stay whether you like it or not, with no conditions.
(201) Non, non, non, Cher Isolde
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You erroneously state:
”Not so long ago you were going to boot us off these islands, “Repatriation”, l think was the word.”
What I said, since my very first posting is:
http://en.mercopress.com/2010/06/04/falklands-thick-fog-forces-two-raf-typhoons-and-tanker-to-land-in-punta-arenas
11 Think (#)
“...... All civilized and democratic countries relocate, after proper compensation, thousands of people each year to make way for “common interest projects”.
For instance, in Copenhagen-Denmark, more than 2000 persons got their property expropriated some years ago to make way to a motorway to the Airport........”
Touché
Touché - that's French for 'touchy' I believe El Think!
Mar 19th, 2011 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A little surprised that you didn't subject IGpryor to one of your usual tests El Think .... strange that :-)
Isolde…........... as an British descendant of French Russian aristocrats, you surely will be able to help your connational and monolingual Gentleman at post No.(203) the understand the use of the word “touché” in the noble sport of “Escrime”.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0IGpryor, you are obviously, unmistakably and unambiguously a thoroughbred Anglo-Argentino:-)
Welcome to the “Nuthouse” ché
El Think
188 IGpryor [hi] TO BRITON: Cristina is not our boss
Mar 19th, 2011 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
first of this was a reference to the boss, i.e. leader, chief gaffer
head honcho, prime minister president king queen emperor
head master ect ect , it was only a reference, others understand this, but you may have misinterpreted it, perhaps you refer to her as something else, but it was only a reference.
as for THINK, this man is good and bad but also a secrete admirer of the British, he loves to hate, , you will find that this blogg is taken with a pinch of salt, in a catty sort of way, we hope you understand this, yes there are some who do not like Argentina, there are some who don’t like anybody, there are some people that don’t even like themselves,
but then WE are only human. good or bad, just human.
hope you understand this, I don’t think anyone here hates your people or mine, [I hope] just a bit of Cynicism
or light hearted ness.[ thanks]
Red always insulting??? nothing better to do or say??
Mar 19th, 2011 - 04:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0isolde so now you are so good that want to share antartida?? in the claim you made doesnt seem that way
i think malvinas are a special case, argentina claims in the UN sovereignity and i agree with this position.
arg dictatorships but also tatchers government and many have used this issue.
202 Think
Mar 19th, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What kind of 'common interest project' did you have in mind? The kind where we are all forced to live in a ghetto in another country so that you can do.....probably nothing with the islands? You're a laugh a minute.
And where were you planning to relocate Falkland Islanders to? What about the ones with Chilean or St Helenian and Falkland Island ancestry? What about the ones who have never even travelled anywhere else?
I suppose you could always find out what they did with the Chagossians as you think that is relevant.
The Falklands will always be British in our lifetime,
Mar 19th, 2011 - 07:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0as for Argentina, the time will come when she grows up, gets a civilised government and lets the Falklands live in peace and quiet,
and we can all go home in peace, and any argentine ex bloggers who refuse to give up there ideas, will probably commit hari karee however you spell it ?
any bets on the first bloggers to jump ?
JUSTINKUNTZ: Not that I intend to give out personal information here (at least not what i consider personal info like contact info, too many names, etc), but were you referring to details about my family? Anyway, good advice. Yeah as to not seeing contrary evidence, totally. From what I've read precisely because the arguments go back and forth and no one will ever admit the other side is right, i strongly back the “Rugby Without Borders” approach, meaning I believe in taking out personal opinion and politics out of it and being a realist--the islands are not going to be administered by Argentina--i can safely bet on that never happening. And so I think that any of our Argie arguments simply do not matter, do not add to a positive discussion, and will yield no results. The approach of cooperation and peace is THE ONLY WAY LEFT. An approach of reasonableness.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REDHOYT: Well good question. I think there's lots of reasonableness in Argentina and lots to learn from our history. Remember, we're the first to jump into self-criticism, and we're very good at it! and we do it all the time. Argentina is a democracy, and a fairly healthy one too! That must be understood. Argentina's is like a teen. Or like a sail-boat in a storm. We're trying to reach land, and we're getting closer and closer. But there's ups and downs. One side takes control, we divert thousands of kilometers, people fight for what they believe (something that in Argentina certainly has been successful, which is admirable), ship goes in the other direction. So on and so forth. You should read about it, and even better, travel there. Meet its people, BELIEVE ME, you will not be disappointed. It's a fascinating country.
BRITON: Sure, some comments are pure cynicism. Some are ridiculously uneducated. I have a problem with the latter, when they come from either side. No issue with cheekiness, sarcasm and just plain speaking out your mind. Yes we're human, we definitely agree on that too.
THINK: Si, si y si
IGpryor
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0good on you old chap, i like your ideas about no boarders, what if all of south America below say the Amazon or further , was without borders,
and all could roam freely between them , looking for work or a new way of life ect, yes i like that, Argentina has been and is as we speak having troops in places to help others, like Cyprus and other places,
good old Argentina you are getting there, good luck,
but I do agree that the Falklands will always be British, thanks .
(207) Monty69
Mar 19th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You ask:
What kind of 'common interest project' did you have in mind?
The kind where we are all forced to live in a ghetto in another country?
And where were you planning to relocate Falkland Islanders to?
What about the ones with Chilean or St Helenian and Falkland Island ancestry?
What about the ones who have never even travelled anywhere else?
I say:
As the people of the Islas Malvinas never have wavered in their loyalty to the Crown and as they firmly belief that the sovereignty of the United Kingdom over the said Islands is unquestionable, you will have to ask all those questions to your British governor.
The relocation, after proper compensation, will be their headache.
You are, after all, British subjects administered by Britain.
I hear that they are quite experienced in those matters.
211 Think
Mar 19th, 2011 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't say what the common interest project was.
And we didn't say UK sovereignty was unquestionable. We just said it wasn't a matter to be questioned by you.
And you know what the UK would say anyway.
Completely pointless argument.
@204 Think, grandfather Thedore was a Doctor of Medicine & grandmama Marie was a bonnet-maker(ladies hats), hardly aristicrats.
Mar 19th, 2011 - 09:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Grandad had nothing but his clothes when he reached Paris. The communists even “confiscated”his surgical instruments.
But that is neither here nor there. l do not agree that it is Touche.
You are trying to muddy the waters. What happened in Denmark has absolutely no relevance to the Falkland lslands. l have read your very first posting, interesting as it is, your tone seemed different then.
But l also remember in a later posting you advocating our removal.
Think, Redhoyt knows what Touche means.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@206 Malen, a lot of countries will share in Antarctica. Nothing about being“good”., but personally l think that Argentina should get nothing, de nada, because of all the trouble that your country causes.Such arrogance. Of course you all want to play the victim. Oh poor Argentina, cheated out of its rightful place in the world...etc etc ad nauseum.
Thank you Isolde - sometimes my little word-plays miss their mark :-)
Mar 20th, 2011 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0IGpryor - you 'healthy democracy' appears to have a question mark against it still - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
Think = the islanders are very happy where they are. Can't see anyone wanting to move in the next decade or two .... or three .... or four ... or seventeen :-)))
212 ojala there could be a common interest project, but i dont know how
Mar 20th, 2011 - 12:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0and isolde i should have no problem to share antartida with you if you werent claiming the same portion arg and chile does
Claims that the British are convinced would not be held up in any international court.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Which is why we tried to take you to the ICJ four times. Both Chile and Argentina were so convinced by the strength of their claims that they refused to go.
One day they will not be able to avoid it !
Actually, to be absolutely correct, as we made our claim in Antarctica first, it is Argentina and Chile who are claiming similar portions of Antarctica as johnny-come-lately's.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 01:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0In addition, it is very unlikely that any Antarctic Resources will ever be recovered within any of our lifetimes, since the Antarctic Treaty appears to be without end.
The whole argument on claims to the Antarctic are therefore irrelevant, why even bring it up?
Sadly the Treaty will not hold up for ever, and then there are only two likely choices. All out war to see who gets what, or some kind of arbitration panel to look at the various claims ... which I don't doubt will increase the moment the Treaty looks in danger.
Mar 20th, 2011 - 04:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina and Chile both recognised British sovereignty until 1925, so they have no real claim at all. And they've never actually explained the basis of their claim. When El Think says it's because they 'ant them', he's probably right on the money !
Why now for Argentina?
Mar 20th, 2011 - 09:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Until now, private oil companies have been wary of drilling in Argentine waters, analysts have said.
Despite Argentina's envy of massive oil reserves found off the coast of Brazil in recent years, the country has made little effort to explore the possibility of such a treasure trove along its own coast.
That may in part be because companies are wary of Mrs Fernandez's government, which has nationalised a major airline and seized billions in private pension funds, analysts told the New York Times.
Most analysts still believe that Mrs Kirchner's main motive for taking such a strong stand in the dispute is political.
With elections coming up next year and her popularity flagging at home, she is hoping to score political points by stirring up the national pride of Argentines over the islands.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1253878/Falkland-Islands-oil-row-Hillary-Clinton-steps-Argentina-stand-off.html#ixzz1HBBMkGJI,
The new (2011) UN Decolonization Committee (C24) president is a former Ecuadorean Foreign Affairs minister, Francisco Carrión Mena.
Mar 21st, 2011 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0He picks up the brief and the correspondence of the previous incumbent - the one that went to Argentina but did not reply to the invitation of the Government of The Falkland Islands to 'come over and discuss.'
The FIG should re-issue the FORMAL invitation and re-circulate to each member of the UN General Assembly that the invitation has been officially sent AGAIN.
The Committee 's modus operandi has been to talk firstly directly to the decolonizable 'micro-state' rather than the state of governance; third party states are never involved in the process - except, apparently, when they are called Argentina and the Latin American C24 lads start (corruptly?) manipulating agendas.
If there is no response this time, then we can all assume, and the UN will assume, that the embarrasing farago of claims by Argentina is officially killed and buried in the UN dead-files.
The discredited C-24 only has one job with regard to decolonization and that is to lead the territories on its list to independence ...... nothing more. It is entirely the wrong forum for Argentina to repeat endlessly its spurious claims, but Argentina has no other. The UNGA is tired of hearing it, hence no UNGA Resolution since 1988.
Mar 21st, 2011 - 02:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Actually, the job is to lead the territories to Self-Determination, Independence is only one option open to any territory within the UN C24 List.
Mar 21st, 2011 - 02:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The UK currently protects and enshrines Self-Determination within the existing Falkland Islands Constitution, so is proactive in assisting the Falklanders to exercise their wishes and rights.
The present Constitution is adopted by the Falkland Islands Government Legislative Assembly, elected by the population, it is their choice to do so freely.
The UN C24 wishes to duplicate the situation, or at least its original mandate is to duplicate the situation. What should happen is the Falkland Islands should be removed from the UN C24 List, but as we are all aware, the UN C24 is now a corrupted body and is acting beyond mandate.
You would think that in the 21st century and with all the chaotic mess in the world, Argentina above all would have more important things to deal with, that this childish obsession with the Falklands .
Mar 21st, 2011 - 02:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Perhaps one day we will see a grown up mature Argentina evolving in a civilised way and heading upwards, rather than the Argentina we have today, totally obsession with an island 300 miles away who wants nothing to do with them. But to live in peace, will Argentina ever grow up and claim her rightful place in the world, or will she always be so childish.,
Dear Dean Street:
Mar 21st, 2011 - 03:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I appreciate your kindness and interest. I read the links that I recommend. When compared with Argentine sources, think otherwise. Anyway, the view is valuable Ernesto J, Fitte. But must be seen with other Argentine and Latin American authors on the subject, but in no way invalidates the Argentine rights.
Also appreciate your kindness. Thank you very much
One cannot invalidate a right that never existed in the first place!
Mar 21st, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Raul,
Mar 21st, 2011 - 11:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You said: “Argentine inhabitants were expelled from the islands in 1833”
Many Argentine politicians say it also, however there are others who contradict this, such as:
Ernesto J, Fitte?
José María Pinedo (Captain of the “Sarandi” in 1833)?
Bonifacio del Carril? (Del Carril at UN 9 November 1965, from MGSS, vol. I, pp. 241-250.
Full texts of Argentine speeches, reports and letters to the United Nations in (anon.), Malvinas, Georgias, y Sandwich del Sur: Diplomacia Argentina en Naciones Unidas, (MGSS) Buenos Aires 1983, vol. I.
Intervención del Delegado Argentino en la Cuarta Comisión. Nueva York.
Documento: A/C.4/SR. 1552.)
You might also wish to read a letter dictated by the illiterate Juan Simon, who was Vernet's head gaucho:
“… Commandr Pinedo told the people that anyone who wished to go to Bs ays., he would take him, and he took some gauchos…”
Juan Simon’s letter was first printed in Buenos Aires in 1967: El Episodio Ocurrido en Puerto de la Soledad de Malvinas el 26 de Agosto de 1833: Testimonios Documentales, Buenos Aires 1967, pp. 122-128.
Are all the above telling the truth or telling lies?
Or
Is it the following who are telling the truth or telling lies?
Hector Timmerman?
President Kirchener?
Any Argentine politician?
Perhaps you can help us get to the bottom of this and tell us all who exactly, is fibbing, and who is being honest?
Kindest regards from the Falkland Islands
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!