MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
BAE wins £59m contract for Falklands patrol ship maintenance HMS Clyde
BAE Systems, Britain's biggest defense company, has won a £59m contract for the maintenance of HMS Clyde, the Royal Navy's continuously-deployed patrol vessel in the Falkland Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules“the ship visits the most remote parts of the islands to “provide reassurance” to the locals”
May 03rd, 2011 - 06:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder if they would dare fire on an Argentine ship, even if the ship in question were inside their “EEZ”...
The UK and Argentina have had their own interpretation of the “EEZ”, (not the meaning but the actual border) it seems that the UK tends to extend it beyond the 200 mile border and Argentina tends to “breach” into it (not that we're actually “breaching” anything...).
“Argentina's coastguard impounded a Falklands-flagged fishing vessel it claimed was operating in the country's economic ”exclusion zone“. ”
http://business.scotsman.com/argentina/Assurances-sought-over-Falklands-harassment.2757979.jp
“The high seas ”arrest“ of the trawler last week follows a low-level ”squid war“ that has been waged amid allegations of over-fishing and infringements of sovereignty. Argentina claims that the John Cheek was illegally fishing in the Argentine economic exclusion zone last Monday”
http://business.scotsman.com/argentina/Assurances-sought-over-Falklands-harassment.2757979.jp
”The coastguard said the fishing boat John Cheek was being escorted to the port of Comodoro Rivadavia, on Argentina's Patagonian coast, with 31 crew onboard. The authorities say the crew had been fishing illegally in waters about 198 nautical miles (228 miles) south-east of Comodoro Rivadavia.“
http://business.scotsman.com/argentina/Assurances-sought-over-Falklands-harassment.2757979.jp
Nowhere in these articles does it say that the ”Royal“ Navy came flying to their rescue, or sailing or whatever.
Seems to me that these ”HMS” toys are just for show, they wouldn't dare fire a single round against an Argentine ship and risk an all out war with South America.
News from 2006 - nothing newer Martian ?
May 03rd, 2011 - 09:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fancy crossing the border? Go for it :-)
The last time an Argentina Navy vessel threatened a fishing boat she made sure she stayed well out in Argentine waters .... the trawler appears to have ignored the threat and stayed well within the Falkland's EEZ.
Would the British fire on an Argentine ship ........ probably not, the Royal Navy feel embarrased when shooting at fleeing targets :-))
2 Redhoyt
May 03rd, 2011 - 09:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0we can not believe this, this Pirates threaten with the patrol ship, they stole the our Malvinas Islands, steal our resources, we steal our oil, now they want to steal our the fish, PIRATES!!!, we must stop these pirates, they sure have to get money to pay the royal wedding! Parasites!!!
Escuchar
Leer fonéticamente
Diccionario0.not0.no0.nay
Kiwi'sArse - my, my, my, my, my ... such a selfish outlook. Just as well you don't own the Falkland islands, you'd want their oil too.
May 03rd, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Forrtunately, we can stop you if you try. Give it up ... you have never owned the Falkland islands ..... and never will !
”Would the British fire on an Argentine ship ........ probably not, the Royal Navy feel embarrased when shooting at fleeing targets :-))”
May 03rd, 2011 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Also the fact that the Royal Navy doesn't go around firing at random civilian ships.
Martin/Kiwi - as others have said, it is not the RN,s job to fire on unarmed civilain vessels- maybe the AA does that but not the British.But you can be assurred that if anAA vessel came into the zone and refused to leave and threatened other vessels - then it probably would be sunk.
May 03rd, 2011 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islands Fishery Patrol vessels(not the RN) police fishing vessels in the EEZ - and they have in the past fired warning shots and even into the forward hull(unoccupied areas) of illegal fishing vessesl to arrest them.
Having done it once they seem to not need to have to do it any more - as fishermen know we mean business and illegal fishing appears to have pretty well stopped.
As others say all, the AA has done on the odd occasion is appear on your side of the line and make noises at boats on our side - and whenever the RN or RAF appears on the horizon - exit AA at speed.
Lets keep it at that level - nobody gets hurt.
Martin_inFierrio. Is just another shagger of goats,ducks & donkeys.
May 03rd, 2011 - 12:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go play with your Union Flag painted train!! & imagine the good life.
Would the British fire on an Argentine ship,,,hmmm just ask the crewmen of the Gen. Belgrano.
May 03rd, 2011 - 04:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nice one Moron :) you posted 4 articles about the same incident from 5 years ago to make a theoretical point......you obviously have no idea how the world works LOL :)
May 03rd, 2011 - 05:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Do you have any proof it would start a war....nope, your just a lame Arsed pretend Argentine from Yankeeland.....absolutely clueless XD
Would the British fire on an Argentine ship,,,hmmm just ask the crewmen of the Gen. Belgrano
May 03rd, 2011 - 06:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0would have been more if the rest hadnt of run away
“Seems to me that these ”HMS” toys are just for show, they wouldn't dare fire a single round against an Argentine ship and risk an all out war with South America.”
May 03rd, 2011 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Cor! you mean you'd send out BOTH of your rowboats against it.....we'd better not risk that.
About as much nonsense and ranting as I expected, you lot never disappoint.
May 04th, 2011 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0I posted several links to the same story because you all have a tendency to discredit links (unless the links come from you, of course, then they're valid).
Empty threats and analogies from wartimes when we were both already shooting at each other. haha.. ok..
Really Islander1? You “mean business” and we “run away” huh? I guess we'll have to take your word for it.
#9,
“your just a lame Arsed pretend Argentine from Yankeeland.....absolutely clueless”
You obviously have nothing of value to add, Rhaurie, if all you can do is question my allegiance solely because I live in the US, nothing to do with the article or what I posted.
It's interesting how so much importance is placed on the fact that I don't live in Argentina, as if this could somehow end an argument.
This, from a community where not only are military personnel often included in the count of 3,000 “civilians”, but where just 40 percent of the population has lived for more than 10 years and only 42 percent of the population was born.
Surely a member of a community where more than 57 percent of the inhabitants over the age of 10 have been implanted, just to add weight to a ludicrous claim of 'self-determination'… wouldn't have ethical qualms about where I live.
But what do I know? I'm just a “clueless arse”. ;-)
Well at least I'm not lying.
@12
May 04th, 2011 - 01:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0”But what do I know? I'm just a “clueless arse”. ;-)
Well at least I'm not lying.”
I agree with you entirely, you're not lying about being a clueless arse.
WestisBest is at a loss for words, just like Rhaurie-Craughwell.
May 04th, 2011 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0@14M_F, Just give it up, Martin. Everytime you open your mouth you put your foot in it.
May 04th, 2011 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Does anyone know what khh @7 is talking about? Seems quite a bit strange to me.
Hardly Martin, I was merely argreeing with you that you are indeed a clueless arse. It is the most sensible thing you said in your entire post, the rest is just whining hyperbole. So you don't like having your allegiance questioned or being reminded that you got whipped in 82 in a conflict with Britain that a bunch of boyscouts could have won....well dry your eyes Cinderella, you'd better get used to it.
May 04th, 2011 - 10:55 am - Link - Report abuse 01 & 12 Martin_Fierro
May 04th, 2011 - 07:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0-The UK and Argentina have had their own interpretation of the “EEZ”, (not the meaning but the actual border) it seems that the UK tends to extend it beyond the 200 mile border and Argentina tends to “breach” into it (not that we're actually “breaching” anything...).
-“The high seas ”arrest“ of the trawler
How can the British side be tending to extend its maritime border beyond the 200 limit if the British side claims the trawler was in the high seas? Do you even know what 'high seas' means?
-This, from a community where not only are military personnel often included in the count of 3,000 “civilians”,
No. Civilian personnel working at MPA and their families have been included since the 1996 census, but military personnel and their families have never been included.
-but where just 40 percent of the population has lived for more than 10 years
2006 census 54% of 2955
-and only 42 percent of the population was born.
2006 census 45% of 2955, 62% of the permanent population
-Surely a member of a community where more than 57 percent of the inhabitants over the age of 10 have been implanted, just to add weight to a ludicrous claim of 'self-determination'… wouldn't have ethical qualms about where I live.
Population size is irrelevant
Pitcairn Islands 48
Tokelau 1433
Cocos (Keeling) Islands 596
Niue 1444
all which are or were on the UN's decolonisation list and with smaller populations than the Falklands, and you are also presuming that all those immigrants would have the right to vote in any self-determination referendum. Only Falkland Islanders do.
-But what do I know? I'm just a “clueless arse”. ;-)
You said it.
-Well at least I'm not lying.
To be able to lie about something you have to know about it, and you are as you said a ....
No actually that bitch Rhaurie-Craughwell said it, hence the quotation marks... ;-)
May 04th, 2011 - 11:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Taking things out of context is the best chance you lot have of winning an argument and it's pathetic. No lies, all true... dabby here facies himself as a master of semantics, which isn't a whole lot different than taking things out of context.
The point that you so evidently tried to avoid is that a large number of these “Falklanders” were implanted, in an obvious effort to deceive the UN Decolonization Committee, it makes you look bad.
I still say that the predominant issue here is the islanders citizenship, hardly an issue of 'self-determination' when the colonizing force is merely trying to maintain its colonizing way of life.
Take Kosovo for example, Kosovo was not looking to maintain its allegiance with Serbia, quite the opposite. Even so, the UN did not endorse Kosovo's claim of 'self-determination'... the US did, the EU did, but not the UN.
What makes you think your case has any more validity than Kosovo's?
The population in Malvinas is a fully British, isolated community claimed by the UK. It's RIDICULOUS and its claim of 'self-determination' a total farce.
Yup ... clueless !
May 05th, 2011 - 02:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0As Dab just said, the size of the population MAKES NO DIFFERENCE, so what would be the point in 'implanting' anyone ??
Can't quite see the advantage in keep reminding us that the Falkland Islands are a colony? Colonies are entitled to self determination / Independence under the UN Charter .... didn't think you wanted that ?? No ??
as for Kosovo - UN agreed the question to be put to the ICJ. You know the result, which is now accepted by the UN. Not much point in having your court decide if you are not then going to accept the judgement.
Yup, clueless :-)
If the size of the population makes no difference... why are you including military personnel from MPA in your 'self-determination' claim? Might as well include every tourist, penguin and sheep while you're at it.
May 05th, 2011 - 02:50 am - Link - Report abuse 0“Colonies are entitled to self determination/Independence”
Good point, there is a difference between a colony that seeks independence and a colony that doesn't. It's hardly a plea for independence when you're a British citizen by choice and you're more than happy to wave the Union Jack around.
And again, Kosovo was not looking to maintain its allegiance with Serbia, which is why I brought it up.
We don't include military personnel ! You need to read Dab's answer again.
May 05th, 2011 - 04:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Colonies are not obliged to seek independence ... they can exercise their self determination to be whatever they want to be .... including a BOT.
The importance of the Kosovo case for some disputes is that 'self-determination' over ruled ' territorial integrity'. Not that Argentina has, or has ever had, territorial integrity over the Falkland Islands.
-No actually that bitch Rhaurie-Craughwell said it, hence the quotation marks... ;-)
May 05th, 2011 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0He said you're a lame arsed yank and clueless. You put them together.
-Taking things out of context is the best chance you lot have of winning an argument and it's pathetic. No lies, all true... dabby here facies himself as a master of semantics, which isn't a whole lot different than taking things out of context.
Nothing of what you have said is true.
-The point that you so evidently tried to avoid is that a large number of these “Falklanders” were implanted, in an obvious effort to deceive the UN Decolonization Committee, it makes you look bad.
They're immigrants and unlikely to have any right to vote in a self-determination referendum. And the UK has never claimed that they do.
-I still say that the predominant issue here is the islanders citizenship, hardly an issue of 'self-determination' when the colonizing force is merely trying to maintain its colonizing way of life.
Citizenship's irrelevant to self-determination. All UN NSGTs are full citizens of their metropolitan states.
-Take Kosovo for example, Kosovo was not looking to maintain its allegiance with Serbia, quite the opposite. Even so, the UN did not endorse Kosovo's claim of 'self-determination'... the US did, the EU did, but not the UN.
-What makes you think your case has any more validity than Kosovo's?
Because the Falklands situation is the same as the other NSGTs list whose right to self-determination has been recognised.
The Kosovo situation is very different. It's an act of secession of an integral part of a state, against the wishes of that state. The Falklands are not an integral part of anywhere. And their exercise of self-determination would not be an act of secession as it would be done with the agreement of the metropolitan state.
-The population in Malvinas is a fully British,
May 05th, 2011 - 05:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0St Pierre and Miquelon population's fully French
-isolated community
No it's not, despite Argentina's efforts to ostracise it
-claimed by the UK.
Argentina claims, not the UK
It's RIDICULOUS and its claim of 'self-determination' a total farce.
What is ridiculous is Argentina claiming a territory it has never owned and which by law it relinquished in 1850.
What is ridiculous is the hypocrisy of Argentina taking Serbia's side against Kosovo's secession when Argentina got its independence the same way, through secession from the Spanish Empire.
-If the size of the population makes no difference... why are you including military personnel from MPA in your 'self-determination' claim? Might as well include every tourist, penguin and sheep while you're at it.
You have crap reading comprehension skills. Read what I wrote. The MPA is NOT included in the population. Most of the civilians at MPA are immigrants and unlikely to have a right to vote in any self-determination referendum either.
And you never answered my original question. How can Britain be trying to extend its EEZ when it claims the trawler John Cheek was in the high seas?
I read you just fine dabby... it's crap and I don't believe you.
May 05th, 2011 - 08:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0The MPA is included in the population, virtually every single islander in this forum will tell you that the residents of Malvinas total 3,000. Official sources from the islands claim around 2,500 residents.
In reality, residents born in Malvinas probably total around 1,500, if that.
“While the assertion that population of the Malvinas is “implanted” is strong, census data collected by Britain reveals that it is largely true. In a 2006 report, Argentine congress member Daniel Oscar Gallo and a team of researchers presented a document that revealed that not only are military personnel often included in the count of 2,500 civilians living on the islands, but that just 40 percent of the population has lived on the islands for more than 10 years, and only 42 percent of the population was born on the island.”
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/argentina-archives-32/2987-resource-control-and-military-might-the-future-of-the-malvinasfalkland-islands
Let me guess... you don't like the article, it must “false”. ;-)
Well, lets see what official sources say…
Foreign & Commonwealth Office:
”Population: 2,955 (2006 Census)“
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/argentina-archives-32/2987-resource-control-and-military-might-the-future-of-the-malvinasfalkland-islands
www.falklandislands.com
”The 2006 census shows that the population is 2,478 (this excludes people affiliated with the military garrison)“
http://upsidedownworld.org/main/argentina-archives-32/2987-resource-control-and-military-might-the-future-of-the-malvinasfalkland-islands
Right… ”this excludes people affiliated with the military garrison” …apparently this has been brought up several times.
Same census, a discrepancy of 500 people, you guys really need to be on the same page here so you can all tell the same lie. Just trying to help you out… ;-)
@24M_F, lt wouldn't matter if there was just one person here on these lslands. They still donot belong to you and its none of your silly country's business what we do here. Just go away and educate yourself Martino.
May 05th, 2011 - 11:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0BUT, just remember, the Falklands are OURS.
whats the population of the South Sandwich Islands martin?
May 05th, 2011 - 01:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0FFS Martin the 2478 figure excludes the civilian personnel and their families living and working at MPA, that's 477 people as per the 2006 census. Civilians at MPA have been counted since the 1996 census; military personnel (ie British soldiers) have never been counted in any census.
May 05th, 2011 - 01:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I read you just fine dabby”
You obviously haven't
Dab is correct.
May 05th, 2011 - 03:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 02,478 + 477 = 2,955. 477 Is the offical number of people on the islands in connection with the base. This number has reduced in recent years in 2001 it was 534.
On the offical census document it even states that the 2,955 figure includes people in connection with MPA but excludes military personel. The 2,478 excludes people in connection with the base.
”Same census, a discrepancy of 500 people, you guys really need to be on the same page here so you can all tell the same lie. Just trying to help you out… ;-)”
It's not a discrepancy, you just totally failed to do any decent research.
Also i don't get the point. It's not like the islands population has trippled in the last few years like some of your Argentinians seem to suggest. The islands have had a population of over 2000 people for 110 years.
May 05th, 2011 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Tripple post but LOL, Martin you can be a right dumbass sometimes.
May 05th, 2011 - 03:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0”Foreign & Commonwealth Office:
”Population: 2,955 (2006 Census)“
www.fco.gov.uk/en/travel-and-living-abroad/travel-advice-by-country/country-profile/south-america/falkland-islands“
”Same census, a discrepancy of 500 people“
If anyone reading would kindly click on martins link, you will notice how it states:
”Population: 2,955 (2006 Census)“
If you scroll down a little more, you will also notice:
”The last census (in 2006) recorded 2,478 Falkland Islanders“
”Just trying to help you out… ;-)”
You need help yourself. You manage to find the right information and still be wrong.
27 dab14763,
May 05th, 2011 - 08:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Shut up stupid it's the same census, different figures, it's not my fault you clowns can't get your lies straight.
Not it's not, You're the stupid one. The cencus clearly states both figures and explains both.
May 05th, 2011 - 08:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Zethee, go tell the nurse you're using the computer before you get in trouble.
May 05th, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's like a retirement home in here.
Oh and feel free to pick up the argument about Antarctica whenever you like, the one Mercopress stopped comments on for no apparent reason. ;-)
I've noticed this great trend with you. When you're wrong, You start randomly insulting people then attempt to change the subject. If this tactic fails, you stop posting in the thread entirely. Quite amusing, really.
May 05th, 2011 - 08:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've also picked the wrong subject to change it to, you was wrong on that too.
Lets go through both, shall we?
- Population. You claim that the population census is a lie because of the two figures you quote. We have stated that these numbers are completely expalined in the sensus, you your responce to this was not to provide more information but to just insult dab.
You can not prove you are right or even give an explanation and are completely and unconditionally incorrect. There are no facts to back up what you're saying and everything we have sstated is backed up in the 2006 sensus.
- Antarctica. You claimed SPECIFICALLY that the UK:
A: Broke the Antarctic Treaty
B: Claimed mineral rights on the antartic peninsula
Both of which are total fabrications, You know this and tried to come out with “yes but the claim for the sea bed is off the peninsula”.
Which is a failiure of an argument. You were incorrect. The seabed is not part of the Antarctic Treaty and we did NOT claim mineral rights on the peninsula.
“You've also picked the wrong subject to change it to, you was wrong on that too.”
May 05th, 2011 - 08:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The wrong subject to change it to?? Why because you lost that argument too?? haha
“B: Claimed mineral rights on the antartic peninsula”
I noticed you fabricate Zethee, you may be quoting from an article but sure as hell not from me. Anytime you start to lose an argument you put words in my mouth.
76 Zethee
“You was pretty clear with what you said. You stated that we claimed the Antarctica peninsula. Did we? You stated that we broke the Antarctic treaty Did we?”
This was my reply:
“Yes, and I told you why, several times.
I'll ask you again... I'm not gonna keep asking, you've had plenty of chances to prove me wrong.
From which point would the 350 mile EEZ extension originate from, if not from the Antarctic peninsula?
If the UK is attempting to introduce a new sovereignty claim, that originates from the Antarctic peninsula, how is that not breaking the Antarctic Treaty when it clearly states that no new claims can be made?
You know what your problem is Zethee? You had no idea the extension originated from the Antarctic peninsula, in fact you understood nothing about the claim or else you would've kept your mouth shut.”
Ah it appears the pretend Argie is digging himself into ever deeper holes like a mole on Ecstasy :) By the way dear fellow, I said your “just a lame Arsed pretend Argentine from Yankeeland.....absolutely clueless XD”.....Lame Arsed you see is quite different to “clueless Arse”.....as most arses are far more clued in about the world than you :)
May 05th, 2011 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have every right to question your pretend wannabe status, as it shows how irrelevant your opinion is, if your spouting to your mates in the local Argentine themed bar in Salt Lick city that you have more rights to islands you are as far away from as the UK :) It just makes you look plain silly, especially even more since you are quite clearly not an Argentine as well XD.....
I have to say, you have quite marvellously lost the plot in relation to Falklands population cencus, military personnel included XD XD XD, I see the only person who claimed that is an Argentine leftist writer and few deluded politicians, and they haven't even quoted a source hahah ps if military personal are included in the figures numbnutts, then you would have seen the first cencus in 1982 (after the war) recording a population of 8,700 :) strangely only a population of 2,100 is recorded.....Tut pulling figures out your arse again...How quintessentially American, better get back to your books Freshman XD
Are we about to embark on another pot fuelled fascinating journey with Martin....I do hope not, I nearly killed myself laughing about the inter dimensional dolphin mine people.....Now its the incredible Journey of the amazing Base which phases in and out of reality :)
You clearly stated that the UK breaking the Antartic treaty and that:
May 05th, 2011 - 09:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The 385,000 sq miles of Antarctica claimed by the UK include the peninsula, the peninsula is PART OF ANTARCTICA AND IS ABOVE THE WATER.”
Could you please provide some information and facts proving that we have broken the treaty and that the peninsula is part of this new claim that you linked, take all the time you like. I suspect that you will be gone a while.
I shall provide some:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
- Antarctica is defined as all of the land and ice shelves south of 60°S latitude. (Nothing about seabed, In the whole document, Read it.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctic_Treaty_System
The United Kingdom is planning to claim sovereign rights over a vast AREA OF REMOTE SEABED off Antarctica
Antratic treaty prohibits the continent, not the waters around it - Fact.
Your own article you provided also does not mention that the peninsula is part of this new claim(as do none others), because it is not - fact.
And yes, im fully aware where the extension comes from. Doesn't change the fact you was wrong. I never stated that the area isn't off the antartic, the article is pretty clear that it is. I've not stated anything wrong - You have.
Also, bit of food for thought. Every nation that has a claim in the Antartic has lodged a claim in the seabed off the coast of the area(Because in 2009 it was the last year to do so). That would mean every nation has broken the Antarctic Treaty and it is no longer in effect. If this did happen the worlds media would have had a field day, it would have been documented. The treaty is still in effect.
You are wrong.
Also, going to avoid the population argument? you were quite wrong about that too.
37_
May 05th, 2011 - 10:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Of course the UK won't mention the peninsula, in fact they did their best to try and keep the media out of it.
“AREA OF REMOTE SEABED” ...remote, as far away from the UK, not far away from Antarctica.
This is the one question you have yet to answer, because you can't.
“From which point would the 350 mile EEZ extension originate from, if not from the Antarctic peninsula?”
Don't forget, it was Chile and Argentina that disputed UK's new claim in Antarctica, jointly. http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Antarctic-Territory-Claims-Argentina-And-Chile-Join-Forces-Against-British-Claim-On-Region/Article/200903115236672
And if you want to keep talking about the 500 residents discrepancy, let me ask you this:
Why are Chileans working illegally in Malvinas?
A permanent resident is just that, a permanent resident. If these Chileans are not working illegally, why is the UK making such a fine distinction between British residents and Chilean “residents”?
What are the requirements for employment in the UK?
What is the legal status of the Chilean population in Malvinas?
So you're not only exploiting Argentina's natural resources (fishing) but our neighbors to the west as well. Quite an operation you've got going on there... much like the Americans and the Mexicans.
36_
Rhaurie, you stupid bitch... lets ask Frase where he was born and where he lives now, shall we?
57 Frase:
“...but here in Córdoba, a few years ago I was earning more than $1750”
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Antarctic-Territory-Claims-Argentina-And-Chile-Join-Forces-Against-British-Claim-On-Region/Article/200903115236672
14 Frase:
“What is city are you from? - In Britain, I'm from the countryside near to Bristol in the south west, in Argentina we live in the city of Córdoba” http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/World-News/Antarctic-Territory-Claims-Argentina-And-Chile-Join-Forces-Against-British-Claim-On-Region/Article/200903115236672
Place of residence is absolutely irrelevant, people move for may different reasons, all over the world. And you're an idiot.
Chile and Argentina have had overlapping claims to part of the Antartic since 1925. They will also be claiming an area of seabed and will obviously dispute the British claim. Despite the fact that both Chile and Argentina recognised the British claim in Antartica prior to 1925. In turn the British will dispute their claims.
May 05th, 2011 - 11:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the distance from the UK - it's just geography, and geography is irrelevant. The British are an island race .... and we are on islands everywhere :-)
“From which point would the 350 mile EEZ extension originate from, if not from the Antarctic peninsula?”
May 05th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0From the antartic, It's not against the antarctic treaty. You stated we broke it, we didn't. It clearly states the continent itself, not the waters around it. Go read the treaty, come back and link me the part we broke. If not admit you were wrong.
“Of course the UK won't mention the peninsula, in fact they did their best to try and keep the media out of it.”
It's not in the media because it's not true. Prove it or admit you were wrong.
“Why are Chileans working illegally in Malvinas?”
I don't know. For many reasons? There are 160 Chileans working there i guess for all different reasons.
You've yet to prove what you earlier stated.
It was you who a while back made a big deal about how people who don't admit when they're wrong have no dignity. Yet you refuse to even though you can't provide any evidence to back up the stuff you make up.
Chile and Argentina would have never recognized any claim from the UK.
May 05th, 2011 - 11:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Neither Chile or Argentina is looking to extend their claim in Antarctica.
The British claim is a new claim, nothing to do with “1925” or whatever.
Lets just cut to it...
Yes, under UNCLOS coastal states may submit a request to extend their EEZ up to 350 miles, this should not include the Antarctic or its seabed.
Britain is attempting to break the treaty, their claim is an extension of their claim on the Antarctic peninsula, from which this EEZ extension originates.
WITHOUT THE PENINSULA THERE WOULD BE NO CLAIM.
End of argument.
“The British are an island race .... and we are on islands everywhere”
So are rats...
The British are a thieving race... and you have stolen land everywhere.
Thats not what you said though, is it? You said INCLUDING the peninsula. Not the waters around the peninsula. You was very clear with what you said.
May 06th, 2011 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0“WITHOUT THE PENINSULA THERE WOULD BE NO CLAIM.”
Yes. And if our new claim included the peninsula if would violate the the treaty. But it doesn't, and the treaty doesnt include the waters around antartica. This is a fact martin, it's in the treaty - go read it.
“Neither Chile or Argentina is looking to extend their claim in Antarctica.”
You already have Martin, try to keep up? Deadline was may 2009. Every nation with intrest in the area submitted a claim. Including Argentina and Chile.
''What is the legal status of the Chilean population in Malvinas?''
May 06th, 2011 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your barking up the wrong tree here Martin. Chilean residents have the same rights as any other immigrants. They have to have a work permit initially. They can then apply for a permanent residence permit, followed by Falkland Island Status after 7 years. Chileans also have a short cut available to them that British immigrants don't; they can become naturalised British citizens of an Overseas Territory and get a British passport that way. No-one is working here illegally.
I can't remember how this appears on the census. I know that everyone apart from military personnel is included,and that everyone is asked where they were born and how long they have been here. I think immigration status is recorded as well. If you had the raw census data you would be able to see how many people were here on short term work permits.
The UK isn't making any distinctions at all. FIG carry out the census and publish the results.
“ ... The British are a thieving race... and you have stolen land everywhere ...”
May 06th, 2011 - 02:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0We've certainly borrowed a bit, but land is not something you can take away.
Fortunately, in the case of the Falkland Islands there was no previous owner ..... ........ starting to lose it Martian ?
43 Monty69 “British citizens of an Overseas Territory” :-)))) What kind of nationality is that? :-)))
May 06th, 2011 - 05:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Anybody can get a stupid British passport, I bet Gaddafi has one.
Do you?
May 06th, 2011 - 06:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... According to the ”Henley Visa Restrictions Index 2010,“ holders of a British citizen passport can visit 166 countries visa-free or with visa on arrival and currently have the largest travel freedom ....”
Now tell me, how far can you get on an Argentine visa ??
27 dab14763,
May 06th, 2011 - 07:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0-Shut up stupid it's the same census, different figures, it's not my fault you clowns can't get your lies straight.
I fucking know it's the same census. I have it right in front of me.
http://www.falklands.gov.fk//documents/Census%20Report%202006.pdf
the 2,478 figure is not specifically mentioned but if you deduct the 477 MPA civilians on table 2 from 2955 you get that figure.
Antarctica/continental shelf
May 06th, 2011 - 07:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK claimed the Antarctic Peninsula (Graham's Land) in 1908 and extended its Antarctic claim to the South Pole in 1917. It has not made any new sovereignty claims in Antarctica since 1917. Argentina first claimed in 1943.
This illustrates what each has claimed regarding continental shelf
http://www.dur.ac.uk/resources/ibru/south_atlantic_maritime_claims.pdf
See note 2. Neither country's defined its EEZ claim for Antarctica. The maximum possible is 200nmi measured from the baseline, but it can be less.
The Antarctic Treaty prohibits extending sovereignty claims on the Antarctic continent, but does not prohibit extended continental shelf claims in respect of Antarctic territory already claimed. I'm not sure on this, but I think the CLCS will not make any recommendations on Antarctic continental shelf claims while the treaty's in effect, but this does no prohibit a state from making a claim. Argentina has presented a claim for continental shelf extension for Antarctica, the UK hasn't, but it has reserved the right to do so in the future.
-Yes, under UNCLOS coastal states may submit a request to extend their EEZ up to 350 miles,
The 350nmi (150nmi extension) applies to the continental shelf, not the EEZ, which will remain at a maximum 200nmi
-this should not include the Antarctic or its seabed.
Except that it does. Argentina has presented a claim. The UK has not. So if it didn't, it would be Argentina in breach of the treaty, not the UK.
-Britain is attempting to break the treaty, their claim is an extension of their claim on the Antarctic peninsula, from which this EEZ extension originates.
WITHOUT THE PENINSULA THERE WOULD BE NO CLAIM.
Even if the UK had presented a claim, this is utter nonsense. If there were no peninsula, there would still be an EEZ and continental shelf. It's just that they would be a different shape. See the south atlantic maritime claims link above.
Martin, you're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer. You suggest Falkland Islanders are “implanted” because of their origins. Well, that would make 90% of Argentines “implanted” too... Not to mention your own “implantation” into the US.
May 06th, 2011 - 08:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact you consistently avoid is that immigrants into the Falkland Islands went there of their own free will - just like immigrants into Argentina, and one particular immigrant into the US.
Just to put the comment of mine quoted here in context,
May 06th, 2011 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“...but here in Córdoba, a few years ago I was earning more than $1750”
That amount is Argentine pesos, it was a discussion about minimum wage, I was earning little more than that, it wasn't that I was badly paid, but I was working freelance so couldn't find as much work. At the time, it was just about enough to live on, but now it wouldn't get you very far.
Just wanted to clarify that, because that extract in isolation makes me sound like I'm trying to brag about how much I earn.
48,
May 06th, 2011 - 10:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Even if the UK had presented a claim, this is utter nonsense”
A new claim dabby, a new claim. Stop taking things out of context and maybe one day you'll make a solid argument. Like I said, none of you know anything about this claim, that much is obvious.
50,
My quote had nothing to do with your earnings in Argentina, I think we all know that. I was just trying to make a simple point, that people move and that this has nothing to do with their allegiance or their identity.
“maybe one day you'll make a solid argument”
May 06th, 2011 - 10:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You've yet to make one.
“Like I said, none of you know anything about this claim, that much is obvious.”
May 06th, 2011 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is gold. Really is.
First time you mentioned this, you didn't even know it was a claim for mineral rights, you thought it was a new soveriginity claim:
“Where in the Antarctic treaty does it say that new sovereignty claims over Antarctica may be submitted? And why… if the UK's claim is so “solid”, is the UK submitting a new claim?”
It's not a sovereignty claim.
Then you stated that:
“The 385,000 sq miles of Antarctica claimed by the UK include the peninsula”
Which was not true.
You again demonstrated(again) that you don't even know exactly what this claim is:
“If the UK is attempting to introduce a new sovereignty claim”
Again, not true.
You then stated that:
Neither Chile or Argentina is looking to extend their claim in Antarctica.
Which is incorrect.
First, if I hadn't said anything about the claim none of you would know anything about it, now it turns out you're all 'experts”.
May 07th, 2011 - 12:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0Second, an extension of your EEZ is in essence an extension of your sovereignty and like I said, (only about 50 times) if you take the peninsula out of it, you have no claim.
The UK “claims” sovereignty on the Antarctic peninsula, this extension isn't so much about mineral rights to its seabed, it's more about an attempt at reasserting their initial “claim” on Antarctica. If the UN were to grant the UK a 350 mile extension, which really is ludicrous because the UK has no legitimate rights over anything in Antarctica, the UK would use this as validation.
Not that any of you are capable of seeing the big picture. If you were to see it you're more likely to profess ignorance than to acknowledge any of it.
Some of you are truly stupid and some of you pretend to be.
Fact is, the UK has no rights in Antarctica, not on the peninsula and not on its seabed. To believe that the UK has more rights in Antarctica than both Argentina and Chile combined and sheer lunacy, nothing more.
“First, if I hadn't said anything about the claim none of you would know anything about it, now it turns out you're all 'experts”.”
May 07th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0The thing is Martin, you made a series of statments and and asserted them as fact. Now it's been pointed out to you that these “facts” aren't correct, Instead of addressing these mistakes, admitting you were wrong or providing some evidence or proof, You're getting into “extension of's” and hypothetical situations or just plain ignoring them.
Facts are:
- The population sensus clearly expalined the numbers
- We didn't break the antartic treaty
- Our new claim does not include the peninsula
- You didn't know what the new claim was
- Argentina also submitted a claim
Each of the above i can provide some form of evidence to prove.
And then you have the cheek to accuse other people of knowing nothing about this claim.
51 Martin_Fierro
May 07th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 048,
“Even if the UK had presented a claim, this is utter nonsense”
A new claim dabby, a new claim. Stop taking things out of context and maybe one day you'll make a solid argument. Like I said, none of you know anything about this claim, that much is obvious.
FFS Martin, I know you meant a new claim
You said
“WITHOUT THE PENINSULA THERE WOULD BE NO CLAIM.”
This is what is utter nonsense. For the simple reason that if the peninsula did not exist, there would still be a continental shelf over which a new claim could be made. Part of that shelf would be where the peninsula is now.
Anyhow, the UK has not presented any extended continental shelf claims for Antarctica. Argentina has.
“Like I said, none of you know anything about this claim, that much is obvious.”
Yeah, right. I provided you with a link showing what each has claimed because I know nothing about the claim.
53 zethe
-Then you stated that:
“The 385,000 sq miles of Antarctica claimed by the UK include the peninsula”
Which was not true.
Zethee, it is true. The UK has claimed the peninsula since 1908.
-You then stated that:
Neither Chile or Argentina is looking to extend their claim in Antarctica.
Which is incorrect.
None of the three are seeking to extend their claims on the Antarctica mainland, but Argentina has presented a claim to a continental shelf extension. The UK has not, but it has reserved the right to do so in the future. Chile has not. I don't if it has reserved rights to do so in the future.
“Zethee, it is true. The UK has claimed the peninsula since 1908.”
May 07th, 2011 - 12:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0You misunderstand dab, This new claim submitted is one regarding mineral rights to the seabed around the antartic waters.
Martin stated that this new claim(In 2009) included the peninsula and therefore broke the antartic treaty.
OK, but as I said the UK has not made any extended continental shelf claims for Antarctica. Though there is nothing in the Antarctic Treaty that forbids a state to do so. Argentina, Australia, and Norway have all presented extended continental shelf claims for Antarctica.
May 07th, 2011 - 01:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0“This is what is utter nonsense. For the simple reason that if the peninsula did not exist, there would still be a continental shelf over which a new claim could be made.”
May 07th, 2011 - 01:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Ok, lets pretend the peninsula does not exist. How would the UK justify claiming the seabed?
Just go and claim it? No need to claim any connection to anything around it?
“but as I said the UK has not made any extended continental shelf claims for Antarctica”
”The claim, which the spokeswoman stressed is still being prepared in advance of a May 2009 United Nations deadline, could extend Britain's stake for Antarctic waters by more than 1 million sq km (386,000 sq miles) and is permitted under the Law of the Sea Convention.“
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7048237.stm
You can argue about whether or not the claim is permitted under current regulations, but not about whether or not the UK submitted an extension to the area they already claim.
Stop trying to sound like an expert when you know nothing about the issue.
”Claims can be made for up to 350 miles off existing territories”
EXISTING territories, you can't just go and claim whatever you like regardless of whether or not you have any connections to it, don't be ridiculous.
The British DO have a connection.
May 07th, 2011 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British have an existing claim to territory within the Antartic. That is a fact.
That claim preceds both the claims submitted by Chile and Argentina. That is a fact.
The Treaty did not wipe out preexisting claims, it merely prevents new claims. That is a fact.
The Treaty does not include the seabed and the UK is entitled to submit an extension of its claim (not being a new claim). Another fact.
But nothing will get decided until the Treaty falls apart. Then there will probably be a war over the Antartic ...... a world war!
“But nothing will get decided until the Treaty falls apart. Then there will probably be a war over the Antartic ...... a world war!”
May 07th, 2011 - 02:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The closest approximation to the truth I've read so far, the rest is brainwashing without any value.
Regardless of how any of us may feel about it governments make cold calculated decisions. In the end fresh water will be more important than fossil fuels, by then new energy sources will have emerged.
I still say, the UK could never have more rights to Antarctica than both Argentina and Chile combined. FACT
The Antarctic peninsula is a natural extension of our sovereignty, the only issue is between Argentina and Chile, no one else. FACT
-Ok, lets pretend the peninsula does not exist. How would the UK justify claiming the seabed?
May 07th, 2011 - 03:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0Just go and claim it? No need to claim any connection to anything around it?
Because the UK's territorial claim in Antarctica includes more than the peninsula.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica,_United_Kingdom_territorial_claim.svg
As does Argentina's
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica,_United_Kingdom_territorial_claim.svg
Those claims would still have a coast even if the peninsula did not exist and off that coast there would be the continental shelf.
If you had bothered to look at this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Antarctica,_United_Kingdom_territorial_claim.svg
top right map, you would have seen that part of Argentina's claim includes a portion of Antarctic continental shelf just below the Weddell Sea that has nothing to do with the peninsula.
-”The claim, which the spokeswoman stressed is still being prepared in advance of a May 2009 United Nations deadline, could extend Britain's stake for Antarctic waters by more than 1 million sq km (386,000 sq miles) and is permitted under the Law of the Sea Convention.“
May 07th, 2011 - 03:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/7048237.stm
You can argue about whether or not the claim is permitted under current regulations, but not about whether or not the UK submitted an extension to the area they already claim.
I can argue because it hasn't:
See my link above. It clearly states that the UK has NOT made a claim. This is illustrated in the bottom right map which includes the UK's potential EEZ claim (striped area), but no extended continental shelf claim (clear area). Compare that to Argentina's map which includes both a potential EEZ claim and an extended shelf claim
Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS)
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm
List of countries that have submitted continental shelf claims
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm
UK's submission for the Falklands, South Georgia, and South Sandwich Islands, BUT NOT for Antarctica
http://www.un.org/Depts/los/clcs_new/clcs_home.htm
-Stop trying to sound like an expert when you know nothing about the issue.
You get your info from a nearly 4 year old news article that doesn't even say the UK has made claim, just that it's looking to do so. I get my info from the Commission itself. And you have the fucking cheek to think you know more than me.
“Those claims would still have a coast even if the peninsula did not exist and off that coast there would be the continental shelf.”
May 07th, 2011 - 03:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Dab... not even GOD knows what you're trying to say.
Off the coast of what???
”Claims can be made for up to 350 miles off existing territories”
Again, existing territories. Basic concepts dabby... if you can't grasp such a basic concept how can you expect to grasp anything else?
“ ... I still say, the UK could never have more rights to Antarctica than both Argentina and Chile combined. FACT .... The Antarctic peninsula is a natural extension of our sovereignty, the only issue is between Argentina and Chile, no one else. FACT ...”
May 07th, 2011 - 03:57 am - Link - Report abuse 0WRONG - on both counts ... you'll be telling me that geography is important next, and that because Argentina looks closer to Antartica than the UK then the Antartic peninsula MUST belong to Argentina.
What a crock of sh*t LOL
Sovereignty doesn't work like that. Haven't you realised that yet ?
We got there first, we claimed it first and, provided we can hold it, it'll be British !
Geopgraphy is only relevant from a logistics perspective ..... it ain't got much to do with sovereignty !
We'll see redhot, we'll see... ;-)
May 07th, 2011 - 04:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0We settled permanently, first.
FFS, are you really this slow?
May 07th, 2011 - 04:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British claim extends all the way down to the South Pole. It is not limited just to the peninsula. So, if the peninsula did not exist, there would still be an existing territory. That territory would have a coast and a continental shelf.
LOOK AT THE FUCKING LINKS I POSTED!!!
Look at the fact that Argentina is claiming for part of the Antarctic continental shelf that has nothing to do with the peninsula
as l said long before, Martin is just an idiot. He hasn't taken in anything you boys have told him & Argentina is always right according to him...an ldiot.
May 07th, 2011 - 04:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0Is a Research Station a 'settlement' ?
May 07th, 2011 - 04:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0Not that it matters, when that conflict comes the Antartic will be carved up by the big boys ......... whoever they may be at that time !
“FFS, are you really this slow?”
May 07th, 2011 - 05:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0I would have thought the answer to that was self evident.
Any chance of a definition for “implanted” Martin? In the context of the Falkland Islands, that is. Or is the fact of your own “implantation” causing a bit of a blockage in your brain?
“as l said long before, Martin is just an idiot.”
May 07th, 2011 - 07:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0Quoted for truth.
A definition of implanted, yes for example 8 generations of english living in a usurpated land
May 07th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0not implanted.... 56 % de los argentinos tiene antepasados indígenas...
you see the difference???
An implanted person calling someone implanted.
May 07th, 2011 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, Malen, but 98 % de los argentinos tiene antepasados europeas...
May 07th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So you are just as “implanted” as the Falkland Islanders, in fact you are more “implanted” than the Falkland Islanders considering most Argentines are *only* in the 3rd or possibly 4th generation - your “implantation” being a lot more recent than the Falkland Islanders.
Oh, and just a reminder: There was never an indigenous population in the Falkland Islands, so the Falkland Islanders never displaced any, unlike you guys did to the Mapuche, Tehuelche, Ona, Selk'nam, Guarani etc etc etc
Sorry Roberts but that is not what the genetic investigation of the article says
May 07th, 2011 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0www.edant.clarin.com/diario/2005/01/16/sociedad/s-03415.htm
if it doesnt appear google ” 56 %......(and so on)”
72 malen
May 08th, 2011 - 12:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0OK Malen, what would you do with the Islanders who are Llamosas, or Alazias and are descended from gauchos, or my neighbours who are Anglo- Argentine, or children who are half Chilean- and half British- Falkland islanders, or naturalized St Helenians? In what sense are they 'implanted'?
You with your '8 generations of english '- you haven't got a clue have you.
Here you go Malen, another quote from your Clarin article: “...sólo el 10% era amerindio puro, sin ningún componente europeo”. That means 90% of Argentines have some European blood. Just because 56% of Argentines have some amerindian blood does not change the FACT that 90% of Argentines are MOSTLY of implanted EUROPEAN descent. I know you find this difficult to understand, but it's a fact. And nowhere in this article does it say how many of the ancestors of the 56% are amerindian. It could be one single ancestor in the distant past, which is not exactly surprising. Even in this article it says that most peoples mitochondrial DNA is european: “la mayoría de la muestra tenía ascendente materno no amerindio”.
May 08th, 2011 - 05:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentines are just as “implanted” as Falkland Islanders, and considering most Falkland Islanders have been there for many more generations that Argentines have been in Argentina - they have more right to be there and live there than Argentines.
Excuse them they are just daft rascists
May 08th, 2011 - 06:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0In Argentina an extensive racist ideology has been built on the notion of European supremacy.[26] This ideology forwards the idea that Argentina is a country populated by European immigrants “bajados de los barcos” (straight off the boat), frequently referred to as “our grandfathers”, who founded a special type of “white” and European society that is not Latin-American.[27] In addition, this ideology holds forth that cultural influences from other communities such as the Aborigines, Africans, Latin-Americans, or Asians are not relevant
Officially racist too. Allow me to quote the Argentine constitution:
May 08th, 2011 - 06:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0Art. 25.- El Gobierno federal fomentará la inmigración europea; y no podrá restringir, limitar ni gravar con impuesto alguno la entrada en el territorio argentino de los extranjeros que traigan por objeto labrar la tierra, mejorar las industrias, e introducir y enseñar las ciencias y las artes.
Yes, whites only please...
malen, a true product of the education system of lmplantaria, oops sorry, Argentina. You've got to say one thing for them, they've got a lot of cheek. 3rd or 4th generation people telling 8th or 9th generation people that they have no right to their land! We are here to stay, malen. Get used to it.
May 08th, 2011 - 10:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Comment removed by the editor.
May 08th, 2011 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So how are your immigrants not 'implanted' and ours are?
May 08th, 2011 - 12:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well Malen. If “...sólo el 10% era amerindio puro, sin ningún componente europeo” that means the other 90% only have “algún grado de ascendencia parcial amerindia”. So like I said above 90% of Argentines are mainly of European descent (even if they have some amerindian blood).
May 08th, 2011 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Immigration into the Falkland Islands was not ALL from the British Isles. They came from all over the place, a lot of them from Scandinavia. In the past, people went to the Falkland Islands OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL. There was no implantation of any sort.
Oh, and if you are so accepting of immigrants from all over the world, then explain why your current constitution still discriminates on race?
Oh, and if you are so accepting of immigrants from all over the world, then explain why your current constitution still discriminates on race?
May 08th, 2011 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their record is not much better with the indigenous people
Argentinian founding father recast as genocidal murderer
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jan/13/argentinian-founding-father-genocide-row
Comment removed by the editor.
May 08th, 2011 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 081 malen
May 08th, 2011 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0porque no vienen de otro país a poner aquí su gente y decir esta tierra es mía y no más argentina.
Translated to English as the post will likely be deleted
because they don't come from another country to put their people here and say this land is mine and no longer Argentina's
But Argentina did do a similar thing when it sent people down to settle the Pampa and Patagonia.
Call it a new race if you like Malen, that's your opinion, but it doesn't change the FACT that the vast majority of Argentines are descended of Europeans and are mostly of European blood. So “implanted” in other words.
May 08th, 2011 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, it sounds like you have a bit of a contradictory constitution. Saying one thing in the preamble and then something else in one of the articles. But is that such a surprise, considering the amount of doublethink you Argies engage in?
Yes here 90 % of the people is white tall and with blue eyes like Menem
May 10th, 2011 - 05:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes come and see all european blood.......
mostly mixed with the natives since hundreds of years ago when the spanish came here for first time
And killed most of them.
May 10th, 2011 - 05:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you trying to tell me the Spanish are mostly tall and blue eyes Malen? You obviously have never been to Spain... Or the Italians for that matter... And Menem, please Malen, take another pill. How many tall, blonde and blue-eyed Syrians have you ever seen? You are just making yourself look like an idiot.
May 11th, 2011 - 08:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@90 J.A.R. she is good at that. Most of her posts are idiotic.
May 11th, 2011 - 10:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!