MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency

The only ridiculous thing in this equation is la princesa de plastica...

You must forgive the Britidh and Falkland Islanders skepticism about Argentina being “absolutely committed”. Would this be the same as their commitment to:

The fisheries agreement (1990)
Review the toponomy relating to the occupation (1994)
The Hydrocarbons agreement (1995)
The flights and navigation agreement (2001)

And so on...

President Cristina Fernandez + Generals + Admirals = Back Door Junta and that as the making of a new Dirty War

They even force people not charged of any criminal act to have DNA tsets against their will. Sounds like an authoritarian state in the making!

Yes, exactly Beef and ukkelper - and don't dare to have your own opinion about interest rates. So much for “free speech” in a “democracy”...

“Let us again be an example of scientific development to the world as we were once”

Snigger, and can anybody tell me the crowning achievements of Argentinian scientific innovation:

1. Finger Print identification.
2. eeeer?

She also needs lessons in history & geography as we are not occupying any Argentine territory.
We are occupying our own territory, you silly plastic woman.

Excellent speech by the president. It is very important work of these years of Nestor and Cristina Kirchner to gamble as a state policy of disarmament and non-violence and invest in the dialogue and peace between peoples. The fact is that Argentina has decreased significantly reducing their military spending to the essentials only. This contrasts with the aggressive arms of Great Britain to hold a basic threat to South America and the southern hemisphere and yet still with the humanitarian bombing civilians in Libya and threatening the region. This has fallen badly in the world public opinion and sympathy welcomes Argentina's position is reflected in growing support in multilateral bodies like the UN, OAS, Mercosur and international forums.

You do talk a load of shite Raul, one might even think you believed it, stop being a saddo.

Erm Raul, until 1982 all the Falkland Islands had for protection was a small party of Royal Marines. They you invaded. Now they are properly defended and you complain? Well you shouldn't have invaded in the first place!

That is why we have created with the Ministry of Science and Technology the first stage of the Armed Forces lab to produce medicines and pharmaceutical items”, she added.---------Sounds to me they might be making weapons of mass destruction under the cover of medicine and pharmaceuticals. I think a closer look by the international community is in order.

seem to me or all “squatterlandia” are nervous ? relax lads, we´re pacific people....still you could use our backdoor......for now :)

Rolly - still going on about irrelevant organisations? No UN GA Resolution since 1988 ... and then they are only 'advisory'. An unbalanced, biased sub-committee carries no weight at all. The other? Who cares?

SoFa - the islander's are not nervous .... they have the British behind them. Who do you have? Chavez?? lol

# Red Hole, Chavez ? wtf ??

we´re so quiet....we have the truth, we all think thats is enough.

Soon or later justice will arrive, dont doubt about it dear squatters :)

I may be wrong...but:
“Let us again be an example of scientific development to the world as we were once. We can do it again, we have the capacity to achieve it”, underlined the Argentine president.

Does it sound like “Hitler in 1935”?.....

“Mrs Kirchner stressed the “importance of strengthening our defence system, because the countries that sold us weapons never transferred technology. I want a country that doesn’t have to give up its development on issues imposed from the outside”....

Is she reading ”Mein Kampf”?....

Oh dear!

President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner
showing her hosts how to back track gracefully.
she knows she has humiliated herself and ridiculled argentina,
but as she said, we are a country of peace,
shame then that argentina did not think of this in 1982,
she has as much chance of getting the falklands, as she has a new plastic face,
and her loyal trusty obedient bloggers have as much chance of intimidating us, and your navy has of finding the entrence to the harbour, lolol

SoFa - if you want justice, then take your case to the ICJ ...... but you can't, can you? The truth is against you!

The Falkland Islands belong to the islanders, and that's just the way it should be :-)

@15

“the countries that sold us weapons never transferred technology”...... WRONG!!

“we want to dismiss the ridiculous statements of a colonial power that is occupying Argentine territory, saying that we are a country on the brink of an attack”.

Well said Cristina.

so_far “squatterlandia”
Hahaha

So_far. I think you mean peaceful. The pacific is an ocean. If you are such peaceful people, then why did you stage an armed invasion in 1982?

Oh and most people take their case to court when they want justice. You have that option. It's called the ICJ. What is Argentina waiting for?

8. Raul:

“invest in the dialogue and peace between peoples.”

- Can the islanders expect a phone call from Christina anytime soon?!?

This contrasts with the aggressive arms of Great Britain to hold a basic threat to South America....

Oh really, It would interest you to know that we have pulled our garrison out of South Georgia and have actually decreased our garrison on the Falklands by 30% over the last few years, and what has Argentina done announced increased spending and the building of 5 corvettes to bother the islanders :)

And what exactly are we threatening? Your ambitions to take over the islands I would presume....

They are waiting for hell to freeze over.

Marcos- so peacefull Argentina- routinely sends its aircraft towards the Islands to test the speed of response and detection by our air defences.
Whose naval vessels periodically harrass fishing boats in waters not recognized internationally as Argentina,s.
Whose Coastguard vessels call up and attempt to interrogate the port movements of civilian ships exercising their right of innocent passage under the UN maritme Convention through the Magellan Straits.
Yup- lovely peacefull lot you are!

I agrre with her on the word “ridiculous” - sums up Argentina,s attitude to a tee.

Islander1 Who was involved in the invasion and killing of innocent civilians in Iraq based on a big lie?
Who is at war in Afghanistan and killing people at wedding celebrations?
Who is at war in Libya against the same leader that day before the war was such a good friend and buying weapons from the same country that now is killing their civilians and try to control their oil fields?

Answer:
The same ridiculous colonial power that is occupying Argentine territory.

The only ridiculous thing in this equation is la princesa de plastica...
I prefer her than the Idiot brit prime minister
David Cameron is an Idiot
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5557918649
The Falkland Islands belong to the islanders, and that's just the way it should b
Sure ladybug:
Henrique Valle of Brazil, speaking on behalf of the Rio Group, reiterated the Group’s support for the work of the Committee to put an end to colonialism, based on Resolution 1514
Imploring the Special Committee not to adopt the resolution as presented, Roger Edwards, an elected official of the Legislative Assembly of the Falkland Islands, and one of several petitioners to take the floor on
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5557918649
46 years and loosing at the UN
nigger, and can anybody tell me the crowning achievements of Argentinian scientific innovation:
1. Finger Print identification
Sure RC:Argentina
César Milstein, Physiology or Medicine, 1984
Adolfo Pérez Esquivel, Peace, 1980
Luis Federico Leloir, born in France, Chemistry, 1970
Bernardo Houssay, Physiology or Medicine, 1947
Carlos Saavedra Lamas, Peace, 1936
Replacing the aging nuke in Australia by Argentina
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=5557918649
We are occupying our own territory, you silly plastic woman.
Sure isolde: We are waiting for your cry next year at the UN(loosing of course) Tell the Malvinenses,I will supply free tissue paper,for the tears

J.A. Roberts (#20) and Mr RedHole #17 for whom all organisms are irrelevant :)

Things will be made ​​in appropriate and desirable time, no doubt for now Argentina strong believe and think the UN is the best way to solve differences.

In fact Argentina respects all resolutions of the organism and follow the advices, calls and statments from his Committee on Des colonization (C-24), as well other international calls for peaceful negotiation from important organizations as OAS, UNASUR, even from your more closer ally USA.

By contrast, the UK does not respect any resolution or international call from anyone, they believe they are above the law dealing and invading sovereign nations like Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya now killing thousands of innocent people ........ all this behavior in the international arena adds further evidence of the fragility of the British legal arguments over the Malvinas, and only puts in evidence that the only reason for staying the madness of the illegal occupants of the islands due to military force. NOTHING ELSE since 1833.

Anyway, all this is undesirable situation is very functional to Argentina´s cause. Las Malvinas, soon or later will be part again of Argentine territory.

If current islanders ..... want to stay or not? is up to them, Argentina´s Constitution clearly states that look after their interests and respect their lifestyle.
We have strong evidence in our history that we gave shelter and home for millons and millons or inmigrants....even thousands and thousands of british, the rest is just smoke and stupidy.

In conclusion, the sooner you sit down to negotiate, the better.

It's inevitable.

Things will be made ​​in appropriate and desirable time, no doubt for now Argentina strong believe and think the UN is the best way to solve differences
Funny,the brits only comply UN resolution when suits them.
They did not comply resolution 502.
ICJ is part of the UN
I agree,why the Malvinenses do not come with a proposal to Argentina?

5 JA Roberts
Raul Erm, until 1982 all of the Falkland Islands for the protection of a small group of Royal Marines. We invaded. Now is a proper defense and complain about that? So you should not have invaded in the first place!

Dear Roberts: So long How's you? Remember the discussions we had about this topic a few months ago. Remember the arguments that I presented on the three British invasion we suffer, that England has 500 years of colonial and global expansion that Argentina has only 200 years of existence and is not a colonial power. It was a mistake as 1982 that I recognized but can be explained in part that always made fun of our patience and our dialogue. I do not condone but justice does not invalidate the claims of sovereignty. Remember that the UK was the first invader, before and after 1833, that their country belongs to the northern hemisphere and has not abandoned its imperial and colonial vocation, just examples of Libya, Afghanistan, Iraq and so on., ETC.
I do not expect to agree with me, but you must acknowledge the justice of our claim of sovereignty.
See you soon!

13 Redhoyt
Rolly - still ongoing about the organizations irrelevant? No resolution of the Assembly of the UN since 1988 ... and then they are only “advisory.” An unbalanced, partial sub-committee has no weight at all. The other? Who cares?

My name is Raul, not Rolly, if you do not make fun of me or is an unintentional mistake.
I treat you with respect, but Argentina and the world interested in the conflict. One achievement of Argentina and not only is Cristina Kirchner have installed the dispute on the agenda of world public opinion and the world is very interested in the subject.
As you will see the world cares, it's just a matter of time that the dialogue prevail over violence.

I know presidential elections are coming up soon in Argentina and the Falklands are always good to keep bringing up to use a lightning rod for elections. So, I understand that. What I don't understand is what Argentina thinks they will do with the islands if they gain control of them again? Introduce corruption, poverty, etc. like mainland Argentina? Is that it? Or, try to exploit the oil reserves around the islands to pay for all of the socialist policies that CFK likes so the poor continue to be dependent on the government? My guess is that crime would increase dramatically, corruption would increase dramatically, and well, lots of other bad things. But yay, we got our islands back, woohoo!!!

27 Malvinarse.....

They did not comply resolution 502.......

remind me again what else where the provisions of UN resolution 502?

“The immediate withdrawal of Argentine forces”

hmmm that didn't exactly happen did it?

And anyway, you ever heard of Article 51.....the right of self-defence :)

Thats right, you were the aggressors in 1982 we had a legal obligation both domestically and internationally to stand up for the rights of the islanders, our citizens......

isnt it pathetic, all the argie bloggers condemm the UK for breaking this law and breaking that law,
but they all stupidy and arrogently forget that it was argentina who broke all the bloody laws and rules in the first place, by invading the falklands,
and just because they lost, they cry like babies, and come up with all the crap they can find,,and when they run out off silly unlawfull arguments, they turn to other countries or events to cover up there stupidity,
the fact is and will remain,,that if argentina had not took the law into her own hands,
WE WOULD NOT BE IN THIS MESS IN THE FIRST PLACE.
argentina fault, argentinas problem, argentinas humiliation .

I don't remember you presenting any kind of coherent argument Raul.

Britain invaded Spanish territory in 1806/7, because Britain was at war with Spain. Argentina did not exist then.

England? I think you mean the United Kingdom. England has not operated alone since 1707. And please stop playing the “colonial” violin. The UK has granted independence to EVERY SINGLE colony which has requested it. And anyway, you have no leg to stand on.

In Argentina's short existence it has engaged on colonialism and genocide on a massive scale. Taking vast swathes of territory which did not belong to it and killing the people who lived there. When you have given back TDF to the Selk'nam and Ona, when you have given Patagonia back to the Mapuche, Tehuelche etc and when you have given back the Chaco to the people who lived there then come and educate us about “colonialism”.

The UK first claimed and settled the Falkland Islands in 1765. That was a LONG time before Argentina existed. What's more the illegal garrison from BsAs which landed on the Falklands in 1832 was correctly protested. Don't tell me it was an Argentine garrison, because we all know that it came from BsAs, and BsAs was not in communion with the rest of the United Provinces at that time. You of all people should know YOUR OWN HISTORY!

Northern hemisphere? What are you talking about. Is “Raul” not a northern hemisphere name? Where do your ancestors come from? Spain? Italy? The pot calling the kettle black!

Oh, and please read a newspaper sometime! Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq: The UK is/was there in all cases as part of a MULTI NATION coalition. Are you also accusing Spain, France, Poland of colonialism in Afghanistan? Are you accusing Italy, Portugal or Greece of colonialism in Libya?

21-Rhaurie Craughwell
- Can the Islanders expect a phone call from Christina in the short term?

It has done consistently with the United Kingdom, especially from 1966 to date by governments calling Argentinos peaceful dialogue and resolution of disputes. You have to accept that they are British, have a governor imposed by the United Kingdom and belonging to her and our claim is directed to the UK, the country's capital is London, not Stanley. We aim to resolve the conflict within the framework of UN resolutions and the decolonization committee that makes every year. With the respect you deserve Is that so hard to understand?

Really, what you want to know that we have thrown the garrison of South Georgia and have actually decreased our garrison in the Falklands, 30% in recent years, and what Argentina has announced an increase in spending and 5 construction of corvettes to bother the island:)

Consider the fact that Argentina has the lowest budget in arms since many years and five corvettes UD. says three are disabled.
Remember that UK is a world power and bomb civilians in Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan and has a fantastic budget helped by U.S. nuclear bombs. You can not compare ... ... ... UK is a colonial empire.

And what exactly are they threatened? His ambitions to take over the islands ... I dare

The healthy ambition to reclaim what is simply claiming Argentina since 1833.
Craughwell Rhaurie leave the hatred of all things Latino in the Argentine general and particular. It is true that 1982 was a mistake and we are ashamed, but that does not invalidate our claim of sovereignty. Remember that the UK has 500 years of colonialism and imperialism in humanity with their calamities. We suffered three invasions English and we remain committed to dialogue and peaceful settlement of disputes. Be honest with yourself and take stock in 500 years of history and you know who the colonialist and imperialist until today. Thank you very much.

thats education for you, when they still think we have an Empire,
perhaps we should send in the gun boats, or colonial troops from africa or india, ,the price of stupidity is when the world laughs, and you dont know why,

19 Marcos Alejandro (#)
“we want to dismiss the ridiculous statements of a colonial power that is occupying Argentine territory, saying that we are a country on the brink of an attack”.

Well said Cristina silly twit
to be on the brink of an attack, your enemey would have to have thousands of troops at the ready, the airforce in the hundreds at the ready, and all its warships at the ready,
but then again if you belive in fairies, then you most certainly belive this stupid deluded woman,[boy] i bet spain is bloody glad you no longer belong to them, think of the humiliation .lol

Raul. You are the product of colonialism. The pot is most certanly calling the kettle black.

29 razor654321 (#30)

You seem sincere, but let me say that the ghosts you´re speaking don´t exist at all...... in Argentina almost people are not interested becasue right now there is more important things to face and to solve.

If somethhing will happen in the future about sovereignty...Islanders barely going to notice any change and they will continue their usual lifestyle, millons in AR have double or triple citizenship...so what the problem ? nobody will change your status of brit citizen....... the only thing will change is perhaps islanders will be feel more relaxed because all you lot will have the necessary support from the mainland for a normal and sustained development .

Argentina is one of the most beautiful countries in the world, no question about it......., I honestly do not think a single Argentine interested to live on the islands.

This is only a matter of dignity, justice and act appropriately as civilized nations.

UK MUST leave South Atlantic, that's all and we all could continue our normal lives and enriching South America.

You're an idiot.

I do not remember that the submission of any coherent argument Raul.

Dear Robert. You're very consistent? Have you ever made a mistake in your life? Are you so perfect? We ... Robert, you know that I respect a lot, and can not say those things ... ... .. The fact that you say different. does not mean that is not consistent ..

Britain invaded Spanish territory in 1806 / 7, as Britain was at war with Spain. Argentina did not exist

Please Argentina became independent in 1816, all those who fought in 1806 and 1807 were Argentina, please, and suffered the invasion ... .. and a stroke of Argentina did not exist ... as if those who suffered the invasion did not have a voice.
You forget the Battle of Vuelta de Obligado occurred on November 20, 1845.
Please Dear Robert, with all the respect you deserve but you make a systematic error: it analyzes the history, with watertight compartments, as if every historical event was totally isolated from the context in which events unfold and also wrong in value judgments, adjetiviza too and has a tendency to put the UK as a heavenly kingdom, which is full of virtue and free from sin and all who do not share the Anglo-Saxon thinking are all savages and children of the devil.
Roberts Excuse me, but someone had to tell, but my English friends were afraid to tell ..

The UK granted independence to all colonies to have applied only. And anyway, you have no legs to stand.

Roberts at what cost, to cost millions of deaths in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Asian everyone everywhere in Africa in the exploitation of slaves. South Africa and the Boer War, all the 17th century 18.19 and 20. You forget all these killings and the present.

Continuing further

Roberts at what cost, to cost millions of deaths in India, Pakistan, Ceylon, Asian everyone everywhere in Africa in the exploitation of slaves. South Africa and the Boer War, all the 17th century 18.19 and 20. You forget all these killings and the present.

Look what I found just google argentina genocide

The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra Sucia) was a period of state-sponsored violence in Argentina from 1976 until 1983

Aboriginal victims of Argentina's 'silent genocide'
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/aboriginal-victims-of-argentinas-silent-genocide-395718.html

When you look at the huge number of black men killed in the war compared to the white Argentineans, you can come to the conclusion that these black men were being used as a “cannon fodder”, and were deliberately being placed on the frontlines. In fact, when you observe Argentina’s history, their government has purposely sent as many blacks as possible to battle in dangerous military service. Not to mention their mission of “killing two birds with one stone” by sending the black Argentineans to war against the Amerindians (Indians), who the white Argentineans despised as well.

Continuing further, if needed

The UK first claimed and settled the Falkland Islands in 1765. That was a LONG time before Argentina existed. What's more the illegal garrison from BsAs which landed on the Falklands in 1832 was correctly protested. Don't tell me it was an Argentine garrison, because we all know that it came from BsAs, and BsAs was not in communion with the rest of the United Provinces at that time. You of all people should know YOUR OWN HISTORY!

AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
What's more the illegal garrison from BsAs which landed on the Falklands in 1832 was correctly protested,by whom?It landed on 1820,by Jewett,representative of the United Provinces,raised the flag UPof the River plate in front of ship from 50 nationalities,including british.No protest by ANY of them....
Robert You are the king of the pinocchios,WHAT A LIAR!!!
”In 1820 the United Provinces boldly declared ownership of certain “inherited” territories from Spain, including the Falklands and several other possessions, some of which Spain never formally owned. But since neither France nor Britain had recognized the United Provinces they likely considered the claim untenable and gave it little attention. Moreover, Britain and France showed scant concern, as the Argentines posed little real threat on the seas.63 This indifference convinced Buenos Aires to act on their pronouncement. In August 1821, The Times reported that an American national, Daniel Jewett, aboard the frigate Heroina, acting as a Colonel of the Marine for the United Provinces, had captured the islands. According to this report, neither American nor British witnesses opposed the act.64 Jewett then sent out notes to the United States and Britain prohibiting fishing, hunting and sealing on and around the islands without permission from Buenos Aires. He received no reply.
https://dspace.lasrworks.org/bitstream/handle/10349/778/09HIST-WarnickShannon.pdf?sequence=1

33 Raul ----Listen little man we keep telling you that Argentina did not exist when we the British came to live on those Islands, we keep telling you this and you should know this if you know anything about your own history. Whats with you Argentines why are you all so dense in the brain? You talk of colonialism as if we the British were the only ones to colonize, when you yourselves actually murdered your way through South America. You yourself forgets all the killing that you yourselves did, and it was only 30 years ago that you tried to murder our citizens on the Falklands and don't dare to say you would not have killed every single one of them if we had not come down and kicked you arses of those Islands as they all would have disappeared never to be heard of again, just like the nuns that your your lot murdered along with the parents of small children that were then given to prominent people, your a despicable race of people that twists history to suit yourselves. Not one country takes you seriously on the matter of the Falklands, oh they listen to your moaning, they placate you with words and then when your back is turned they say thank god they have gone now can we begin something more serious , and you despicable people think that just because they listen out of courtesy to you you have a case. You yourselves are the squatters in that part of the world, you came, you murdered and then settled in that part of the world, and you dare to say that the people of those Islands are squatters. They have nothing to do with your despicable country, the islands themselves have nothing to do with your despicable country, with its corrupt governments, with its high inflation. You lot are so dense in the head that you cant see that at every election time they wheel out the same old story about the Falklands to get you whipped up, and you flock to put your little mark on the person that shouts the loudest about the Falklands belonging to Argentina. And you remain poor.

“AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAA”

umad?

No I really can not control my laugh at the stupidity of the pro brit side.....
Is soooo bizarre....
Do me a favor zethe and robert: See you next year at the UN.
You bring all those“powerfull”proof,and convince the other side of the undisputed rigth of uk to the south atlantic,and the malvinas.Also you can claim my home in Argentina,since,Argentina beign only 300 nautical miles from Malvinas,has had no inflluence..
What a Bunch of LIARS!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHH
What a decadent country is uk...

Malvinero1 and Raul , sadly mate its you that are in the wrong,
When you talk about EMPIRES
let’s look closer shall we,
1, go get a map
2, make sure it shows all empires, not just the British,
3, look at south America,
4,, except for the Falkland’s, and battles, look at who’s Empires e was in south America,
5, you will find the following empires and colonies on MAINLAND south America, from say the panama southwards,
British Spanish, Portuguese , and French and more,
6, divide by how many countries in south America, by the worlds empires,
7, work it out for your selves,
8, divide this by the millions who perished and were murdered slaughters and civilisations that were destroyed,
9, take out the TWO British bits, and what’s left is your heritage
And then come back here and tell us all how bad the British Empire was,
And how great your colonial masters were,
10, and you will denounce all and be not interested,
The result is why you do not have the Falkland’s today,
as you have no respect for innocent people their rights or freedoms.
p/s
Read the following two statements from your own government,
1, Argentina once again would like to state that it’s a country of peace whose involvement
Is always peaceful.
2, the sale of power from landlocked Paraguay to Uruguay continues to be delayed because Argentina has come up with more demands and you call your selves civilised lol.
Goodnight mmm..

Malvinero1 asks: “What's more the illegal garrison from BsAs which landed on the Falklands in 1832 was correctly protested, by whom?”
Answer:
Henry Fox, the British chargé d’affaires at Bs As. This is a matter of recorded fact. He also protested the appointment of Mestivier as “Commandant” of the Falkland Islands - also a matter of recorded fact.

Oh, and I think most of the world knows that Jewett was never a representative of the UP. Except of course Malvineros who don't want facts to get in the way of their fantasies. Jewett was the master of a privateer - a pirate in other words - employed by the United Provinces to capture Spanish ships. Nothing more, and nothing less.

There is not one shred of evidence that Jewett was appointed a representative of the UP or that he was given a mission to claim the Falkland Islands. When he “took possession” of the Falklands on behalf of the UP in November 1820, he did so on his own initiative and without any authority whatsoever. Furthermore the first BsAs knew about Jewett's “taking possession” was when this was reported in the foreign press! Nobody took him seriously, not even Buenos Aires. You shouldn't either.

Well they say legends have a grain of truth in them

And legend has it that sir, Francis drake landed of the Falkland’s on his round the world exploration in the late 1500s,
Now we can’t prove it,, but from argentines point of view, then it must be true,
Interesting thought lol..

@41BritishBulldog,
Exremely well said, sums it all up. ln complete agreement.
@43Malvinero,
We don't want your home, but we also don't want you to steal our home.
@46briton,
l can vouch for that as l was with him!
Only joking, but it's as sensible as the Argentine's “claims”.
@36 so_far,
The UK doesn't have to do anything that you say. Do you own the South Atlantic? No.

Morning all, this thread has gone well I see.

Usual rubbish from Rolly and SoFa who seem to think that minor old boys clubs (OAS, UNASUR etc) will assist Argentina is grabbing what it has never had a real claim to. And SiEster Who Is Now Marvin whittering on about Jewett, who did nothing and achieved nothing. Argentina attempted to take sovereignty of the Falkland Islands in 1832 by sending a garrison - an administrative power. They lasted less than 3 months before being ejected by the rightful owners. No establishment of sovereignty before 1832, and none after =- no claim.

Argentina tried again in 1982 ... again, ejected. Trying now to work their way up to a 3rd attempt?

That of course, is the problem with Argentina. Lots of nice words, but every one of their neighbours know that they cannot be trusted. The British don't trust them either .... hence the clear warnings!

One last thing ... if Argentina did not exist on 1806/07, then the British could not have attacked/invaded Argentina. Yet another made up history!

Roberts You follow the short story, fable of P & P, my god
“was when this was reported in the foreign press!” UK silence Roberts silence...

Sorry, Malvinense 1833, but you are not making a lot of sense...

Marcos, totally agree with you over Iraq! Afghanistan- UK and others are there at the INVITATION and BY AGREEMENT with the Afghan Govt.
How little do you know about what happens in war- sadly it is an inevitable fact of life that civilians can end up getting clobbered accidentaly by one side or the other in war - today it happens a lot less than years ago, but still happens. Odd that you make no mention of the Afghan civilains DELIBERATLEY mutilated and murdered by the Taliban?
Libya - UK is not In Libya! Again along with others UK is enforcing the will and legal decision of the UN Security Council. Around and above it. Again with the support oif what does appear to be a very large part of the population there - or would you have liked to see the populations of Benghazi and Misrata tortured and put to death? - after all that is what was promised to them.
Blair all cuddly with Libya before- agree - it made me sick as well! But at that time Libya was not threatening its own people.

of course, does not suit you understand ... Roberts

Difficult to understand gibberish Marvin. Jewett's story was first published in Britain and he did not bother to inform BA. His 'claim' in any case was a joke! Two claims were already in existence. The British claim being the oldest.

Jewett did not establish sovereignty for Argentina. Vernett did not establish any kind of sovereignty for Argentina. Argentina's first serious stab at imposing an administration over the Falkland Islands was when it sent a garrison in 1832.

It's you that needs to read and understand more !

Mr RedHole = yawn

Back to the article....“Let us again be an example of scientific development to the world as we were once. We can do it again, we have the capacity to achieve it”, underlined the Argentine president.

Sound reallyt nice to me, a good message to Argentines and to the world.

One more time Argentina is wating you in the table with good faith, be smart dear bennies :)

Red, The British usurpation of our territory in 1833, had as to justify the original discovery and subsequent occupation.
Both are lies!!!
It's you that needs to read and understand more !

Look robert: Is soooo out of history facts, the works ,that you think is the bible, of the two most LIARS clown ever,Salt&pepper,that really you are so INMENSILY ridiculous, that the two clown,S&P,no BOOODY used that garbage as a reference.,in any serious work
See you next year at the UN robert,do not forget to bring those 2 clown of salt&pepper to the UN,so the laugh will we herd from New York to Malvinas..
By the way,the link I posted on Jewet,belong to the work of a british author...

The British just want war. It is the argument of force. really ridiculous.

The 3 stooges, SoFa, MarvinSiEster and Marvin33. Idiots all.

Britain could not 'usurp' that which it had owned before Spain knew the islands were there and long before Argentina even existed.

Nor does Britain need to go to the negotiating table because there is nothing that needs negotiating.

You accuse us of lying, but offer no evidence. Too cowardly to take your case to the ICJ. Too easily defeated by reasonable argument.

Three stooges. Three idiots. Three turnips ( to steal a phrase).

3 = no chance, no hope, no future.

Wave at the islands should you sail near, because that's as close as Argentina will ever get!

relax RedHole...don´t nuke us. We´re pacefull people and Malvinas Islands are Argentine Territory with few squatters since 1833, everybody knows that, ask UN, C-24, OAS, UNASUR, etc, etc......yawn, is really bored explain to you all the time the same.

By the way.....you know that anger is when you start to loose credibility ?

Calm down mate :)

Peaceful? You tried invading our islands in 1832 and 1982. Apparently you were then intent on attacking Chile! Peaceful! Don't make me laugh.

And who is 'everyone'? Obviously not enough to get you any more than a request that talks be held. Have you actually read the stuff the UN produces? Somehow I doubt it.

As for the rest. Minor organisations with no weight. Powerless to assist you in your ridiculous and spurious claim. Or haven't you noticed? The islands are British. Have been since 1765. And your whinging in these organisations ..... how many islands has that got you back?

Calm down ... if I was calmer I'd be asleep :-)

ey Red, calm, always discussed without insults.
It seems that last night has a nightmare. relax, drink your tea.
No there I.C.J. because U.K. not want to negotiate, not talk because they can not support their lies.

the sale of power from landlocked Paraguay to Uruguay continues to be delayed because Argentina has come up with more demands and you call your selves civilised ,may be they have a problem with the grid capacity...
Peaceful? You tried invading our islands in 1832 and 1982. Apparently you were then intent on attacking Chile! Peaceful! Don't make me laugh
Garbage!!
Britain could not 'usurp' that which it had owned before Spain knew the islands were there and long before Argentina even existed
Stupid!!!
You accuse us of lying, but offer no evidence. Too cowardly to take your case to the ICJ. Too easily defeated by reasonable argument.

WWhy do not take you to the ICJ?You have the problem,not Argentina.
The all latinamerica,does not care about 2000 people,in Malvinas.They do not exist...
You ARE LOOSING!!!
Everywhere,OAS,even the USA is not supporting you
Three stooges. Three idiots. Three turnips ( to steal a phrase).

3 = no chance, no hope, no future
AHAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAHHHHH!!
Best of all,uk think they are powerful:
Jim Rogers the UK is FINISHED !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
UK will Collapse Jim Rogers Investment Guru !!!!!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4I9jKLevUE&feature=relmfu

UK economy much bigger problem than Greece: Greece economic will be limited - President of Merk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q4I9jKLevUE&feature=relmfu
Is amazing how a decadent country,still think they are number one!!
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!
Do not worry,ladybug,you can still inmigrate to Argentina,like many British,have done and doing....

Marvin33 - you are giving idiota's a bad name. For the millionth time, Britain CANNOT take Argentina to the ICJ because Argentina has not fully recognised the jurisdiction of the court. So the ball lies squarley in Argentina's court.

We tried to take you to the ICJ 5 times over South Georgia and the SSI's, but you wouldn't go. Liars and Cowards!

Finished??!! You lot must have a different definition of finished than the rest of the world. But hey, Argentina never got started.

Argentina cannot access the world's financial markets until it pays off its debts ..... so tell me, idiota, how's that going ???

#60 Thats better RedHole !! you start to be funny again beyond all your lies that honesty only your people could believe it, is really sad that huge autism.

Anyway, talking about funny people....we miss your friend Filippo, where is he and LOS Malvinas !!!?? You brits are really amazing people :)

We tried to take you to the ICJ 5 times over South Georgia and the SSI's, but you wouldn't go. Liars and Cowards!
And Malvinas??? M A L V I N A S Cowards??? says Cowards???
You can fool yourself. But you can not fool the people of the islands.
The British usurpation of our territory in 1833, had as to justify the original discovery and subsequent occupation.
Both are lies!!!

Lies?

1. Britain established sovereignty in 1765, before Spain = FACT

2. Argentina did not exist as a nation or legal entity before 1816 = FACT

3. Since 1765 Britain has never renounced or legally abandoned its sovereignty. Withdrawing the garrison does not amount to abandonment = FACT

4. Argentina's attempts at trespass in the 1820's and 30's do not legally amount to an establishment of sovereignty overiding Britain's existing claim = FACT

5. Argentina DID abandon its spurious claim in the Treaty of 1850 = FACT

6. Britain has no doubt about its sovereignty and will deal with its Overseas Territory accordingly = FACT

No lies, just facts. Now if you want to prove otherwise you know where you must go. There is only one international court capable of adjudging your lies. So get some cojones and take us there!

# 49 Malvinense 1833 ”Roberts You follow the short story, fable of P & P, my god “was when this was reported in the foreign press!” UK silence Roberts silence...

I will answer that one:

The only public announcement in Argentina of Jewett’s claim – in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821, more than a year after the event, and then as a foreign news story.

The Salem Gazette, first published it on 8 June 1821, and it was reprinted by the Times in London on 3 August 1821.

If it had not been for the publication by the Salem Gazette, and an account in a book by James Weddell five years later, the Jewett claim would be unknown today.

The Times article was then repeated in a Gibraltar paper and was picked up by the Spanish paper Redactor de Cádiz.
It was only when the Cadiz report reached Buenos Aires, as a foreign news story, that Jewett’s “claim” to the Falklands become known in Argentina. It was published in the Buenos Aires Argos on 10 November 1821, over a year after the event

The Buenos Aires Government actually had no idea at all about this, until the article was published.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/52978952@N04/4984044487/

Here is the proof, it is written in some strange 3rd world dialect, so you should understand it.

“We all know that we had to give up scientific and technological development by outside imposition. ”
(Christina Kirchner, on the election trail)

Can you tell me the details of this moratorium on Argentina, because it is news to me.

Thanks A.J. Rimmer. No doubt Malvinense and Malvinero will counter that with their well rehersed “argument” of calling it all a pack of lies. No evidence to the contrary though.

Reading the Argentine's distortion of history & downright lies is funnier than watching a three ring circus & its free!
Some people pay good money to see a show like this!

“Cabinet Chief Aníbal Fernández, Foreign Minister Héctor Timerman, Interior Minister Florencio Randazzo, Economy Minister Amado Boudou, Defence Minister Arturo Puricelli and Planning Minister Julio De Vido joined Fernández de Kirchner in the dinner.” .... while the two old geezers from actors' equity had to hand back their uniforms and go back to the old folks' home for their evening bowl of gruel.......

And not a general to be seen.........

If the Argentines get the Falklands then they will have another piece of territory to loot and mismanage. Just say no. Collagen lips CFK is the devillette herself. The real tragedy is that she is ahead in the Presidential polls. Stupid is as Argentine does.

Jorge, are you argentine?

they will never get the british falklands.

Continuation: 38 Raul

J.A.Roberts:
In the short life of Argentina is committed to colonialism and genocide on a large scale. Taking vast expanses of territory that belonged to him and killing people who lived there.

They've said on other occasions, it is true both General Roca, as did Gen. Mitre genocide and gives us great shame but wrong in the territory, always belonged to the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata and Argentina inherited from Spain.
You are shocked by the massacre of the Indians, you're right, but you are not shocked by the killing led by Reini Kingdom in the world to an unimaginable scale and magnitude, is worse than the Nazis. Compared to other killings, comparing them, is hardly insignificant. CAUTION: repeat compared with those who carried out the UK is really infernal and tell civilized.
UD is fixed. straw in someone else's eye but he does not notice the log that you have in your eye.

Oh, and please, read the newspaper at some point! Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq: The United Kingdom is / was there in all cases as part of a national coalition MULTI. You also accuses Spain, France, Poland, colonialism in Afghanistan? Are you accusing Italy, Portugal or Greece of colonialism in Libya?

I read every day the newspaper and also different sources of information that are Anglo (CNN, BBC, NBC) and they are not (Tele south, Al Jahzerah, Latin lines etc.). If true, can not justify the death on either side and if the accused because without realizing it at the service of NATO and that behind the U.S. and UK approved the killing of civilians in Libya. That does not mean to condemn NATO, but Qaddafi is best placed to act. The remedy is worse than the disease.
Goodbye and Thank you.

@67 A.J. Rimmer, excellent. THE NEWS WAS KNOWN. Jewett was sent by the government. The government already knew.
At that time there was no internet.
The news was known understands
UK silence.... of course had no claim
@66 Red, Remember the year 1764 and the country-France, FRAN- CE.
Obviously does not know international law. Stop reading the lies of P & P
Do not lie again, but the truth is painful for you.

British history site

“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.

The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823”

I like to remind Brits of not matter how hard they tried to discredit this historian personally, he refused to change the truth history.
They better get used to it.

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm

Gradually the island people are understanding that Argentina's claim is not unreasonable.
They say it themselves when they come on holiday here.
Mr. Cameron, we just want peace, sharing a asado and playing fútbol with the people of Port Stanley.

Correction @77: True history.

Excellent work of Marcos Alejandro, The Link is is clear that Argentina supports the concept. Who wants to hear let him hear the real story.

Malvinense 1833:
Mr. Cameron, we just want peace, sharing a barbecue and playing soccer with the village of Port Stanley.

That's the idea and concept. Primis reiterate the Martin Luther King: There are no roads to peace, peace is the road.

#77 Marcos Alejandro

“I like to remind Brits of not matter how hard they tried to discredit this historian personally, he refused to change the truth history.
They better get used to it.

www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm”

The Brits don't need to discredit this site. I note you only paste the part information from this site that fits your world view yet neglect to post the disclaimer which is readily visible under the section “The Purpose of This Site” and I quote -

“First of all, I would like to make it clear that this site is not a rigourous academic site. I am sure there are plenty of mistakes and oversights on my part; for which I apologise in advance.”

The author readily admits it is not a rigorous academic site and he isn't an historian he is a history teacher NOT the same thing.

81 LegionNi: You can keep telling him untill you're blue in the face. He knows full well it's not an academic or factual website but still posts it at every opportunity.

81 LegionNi, This honest Brit refused to change it because is right, where did he get it from, an Argentinean book? Please.
The British pressured him to change it like they did with Official British History.

“Official British history of the Falklands War is considered too pro-Argentina”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html

Lies have short legs, do not run very fast.

Of course, historians, lawyers of various nationalities including british are wrong. Only P & P have the truth. poor
lies have short legs.

No-one has asked him to change his website....

#76 Malvinense 1833 “@67 A.J. Rimmer, excellent. THE NEWS WAS KNOWN. Jewett was sent by the government. The government already knew.
At that time there was no internet.
The news was known understands
UK silence.... of course had no claim”

Jewett was not sent by the government to claim the Falklands, no evidence has ever stated that, however there are many sources to disprove what you are claiming. Jewett, was sent by BA to captue Spanish ships, nothing more, he failed to capture any, and instead resorted to piracy, and captured 2 ships, one belonging to Portugal, the other belonging to the US.

Jewett even wrote a letter to BA, asking to be relieved in 1820, again he never mentioned any claim to the Falklands.

Britian has claimed the Islands since 1765, so yet again, you are wrong.

Tell me Melvin 1833, do you practice being wrong all the time, or does it just come naturally to you.

Oh yes they did, some in here commented about writing to this history teacher and demanded to change it.

Malvinense, “P & P have the truth” after they got their checks from Malvinas colonial government.

For Marcos Alejandros, so_far and Malvinense 1833 and those who fight for justice and peace un small gift.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x61jWpNz51w

J.A Rimmer, Excuse me?? “Jewett was not sent by the government to claim the Falklands” See what you wrote in point 67. THE NEWS WAS KNOWN. ;-)
“Jewett, was sent by BA to captue Spanish ships, nothing more” THE NEWS WAS KNOWN. ;-)
The news of the takeover of the islands by the United Provinces was known ;-)
Marcos Alejandro, the lie has short legs, stumble and a big blow for they.

78 Malvinense 1833
''Gradually the island people are understanding that Argentina's claim is not unreasonable.''

No we aren't.

And you can come here and play football if you like; you just can't take over our country.

The news about the claim was not known in Argentina until 1821, what part of that statement do you not understand? The Islands were protected by the Nootka, so only the previous claims remain valid.

Jewett was not sent by BA to claim the islands on behalf of Argentina, he was sent to sea to capture Spanish ships. He infact failed.

It is honestly like talking to my shoe when speaking to these deranged malvinists, do they all suffer from an extreme case of dyslexia? Can their tiny minds not process simple statements?

No wonder Argentina is in the sorry state it's in when pond life like these folks remain so deluded.

The Malvinist are looked down on by the Flat Earth Society.

@90 Monty69, do not get angry, but the islands are not a country, is an overseas territory, usurped to a country, Argentina.

@91 A.J. Rimmer “The news about the claim was not known in Argentina until 1821” and????, in what things change????
“Jewett was not sent by BA to claim the islands on behalf of Argentina, he was sent to sea to capture Spanish ships.”
And the news you mentioned in point 67 What's that?
What Jewett was vacationing on the islands?
You do not know what it says. First you say something and then change.
Show me the way, what arrow I follow? ◄ ►
My shoe, my god!!!

Morning all - usual distortions from the 3 stooges I see.

Jewett's claim is inadmissible because there were already two claims, neither of which had been renounced nor abandoned. The British being the stronger claim as the French who were there before had not attempted to formally claim the islands. Jewett did not attempt to form an administration or even to inform his superiors. Argentina has no proof that the BA Government sent him to claim the islands whereas we can show that his claim carries no weight in international law. Jewett's was a Privateer and a poor one at that. He found himself on the islands with no better prospects. Jewett's a waste of time and of no use to the Argentines!

The application of Nootka is a moot point, but in any event the agreement does not support an Argentine case. The Falkland islands are not 'adjacent' for the purposes of Nootka, and if they were, then the secret clause would apply.

What the British are doing in other theatre's of conflict is irrelevant.

So, another day. The Falkland Island's are still British because the islander's wish it so. Excellent. A display of self determination in action.

And all is well :-)

#88 Thanks, God bless Argentina, God bless LatAm

#99 Thanks RedHole too, you make our day funny with your basic concepts, a 100 % authentic brit, an example of honesty and truth. :)

93 Malvinense 1833

I'm not angry. If I gave a stuff what you thought I might be, but I don't.

@94 Red, There was no demand, UK retired in 1774 to fulfill its part of the deal.
“The British being the stronger claim as the French who were there before had not attempted to formally claim the islands.”
Very bad. Do you not know international law or you do not want to understand. France occupied the islands first. U.K. ran out of arguments and rights.
Louis XV incorporated the Malouines islands into the Kingdom of France.
The British Parliament never approved the establishment of Port Egmont. It never became the property of U.K.
Nootka. The importance of this treaty is that U.K. again recognized Spanish sovereignty over the islands, unable to settle in regions already occupied by Spain.
This is known by the British experts. Why do you think your country refuses to talk to Argentina?
As Marcos Alejandro says: lies have short legs.
P & P to one side.
@96 Monty 69 Think differently but I respect him because you respect me. Exchange ideas and that's good. We started with something, a hope.

1. There was no secret agreement in 1771. The Spanish were defeated by the mere threat of war and the lack of support from the French. The British withdrew the garrison in 1774 leaving behind the accepted marks and signs. Sovereignty was neither renounced, abandoned or lost. There was no 'deal' and therefore you have no proof one one. See Viscount Palmerston's letter to M.Moreno dated 1334. I challenge you to prove me wrong!

2. A frenchman had a private business venture in the islands but there is no evidence that France attempted to claim sovereignty. The Spanish 'bought' the business, nothing more. I challenge you to prove me wrong!

3. Louis XV DID NOT incorporate the islands. Where is your evidence?

4. The Falkland Islands were claimed on behalf on the Crown. Parlimentary approval was not required. Prove me wrong!

5. Nootka is irrelevant as it only covered 'adjacent' islands, and 400km is hardly 'adjacent'. If Nootka had applied then the secret clause would have authorised the British action of 1833, Argentina being a 3rd party under the agreement. Prove me wrong!

6. Britain refuses to discuss sovereignty with anybody, because we have no doubt about our sovereignty.

You need to check your facts. P&P allows this as it is well referenced. Argentina does not support its case with evidence, which means that it probably doesn't have any. A reason why Argentina will not go to the ICJ perhaps?

Proof is something that Argentina lacks.

“...territory, always belonged to the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata and Argentina inherited from Spain”

No Raul, Argentina took its independence by force. Argentina did not “inherit” anything from Spain. It is only possible to “inherit” something by agreement. There was no agreement from Spain for Argentina's independence. Spain did not even recognise Argentina until 1859!

I'm glad you accept that Argentina was as colonial and genocidal in the past as the UK. The magnitude is irrelevant. The British Empire was much bigger, so the scale would have been larger. In fact I bet per capita more indigenes were killed by “rifle patrias” than anywhere in the British Empire.

Oh and I'm also pleased that you accept the UK is no alone in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The UK is not some lone colonial crusade by the you tried to imply.

argentina was not an empire never.
we argentines were colonized by spain. obviously if you are sujugated and dominated you are going to fight for freedom. to allow the people to govern by themselves and not by a king in europe. whatstupid comment is that you make. you dont konw what freedom is we yes.
what do you expected to talk to the virrey and ask him oh please dear virrey give us freedom you have been here for 300 years do that favour?? you are jocking?? they didnt want to go, they stole all our resources all of them dont you know that?? or what do you think they came here to have sun and because beaches are nice....
and second argentina fouht against argentines in campaña del desierto.and yes we inherit all from spain robertito
spain can not own nothing in south america because by subjugation you can not own sovereignity and lands, you have to give it back to its real owners.

I'm glad you accept that Argentina was like colonial genocide in the past and the UK. The magnitude is irrelevant. The British Empire was much larger, so the scale would have been greater. In fact, bet on indigenous inhabitant was killed by “patriotic rifle” in any part of the British Empire.

Dear Roberts: You're wrong, the scale is relevant in 500 years of history is terrible, so the scale of genocide is much higher. Roberts, genocide does not justify a single death is as serious as terrorism imposed on India in the colonial period.
I do my self, we had 30,000 people is also state terrorism, but also make you own. The UK does criticism of imperialism and killings planned in economic and military global scale. Sad and pathetic thing is that it continues today with its colonial and imperialist policy with the United States.
“The country Rifle” as did the British in India, America, Asia, Australia and across Africa to scale and much greater magnitude.

Oh, and I'm glad you agree with the United Kingdom not only in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The UK is not alone a colonial crusade which he attempted to convey.

If truth is a coalition, but are instruments of NATO and behind this are the multinational U.S. economic and England, looking like oil in the Falklands, is complicit in this slaughter of civilians by bombing beyond humanitarian Kadafi crimes. The Coalition proposes more death and has no moral authority to address the conflict. The remedy is worse than the disease.

In summary estimate Roberts, as the Bible said, “nobody is without sin.” Death does not justify any small, sooner or later they will report it and recognize that not everything is as it seems and stop hating American and Argentine, part of the truth have it.
Hint: Think and raise an equitable solution for both Argentina and the UK and leave the bitterness of the past, much healthier, think as a statesman and not as holigans.
See you soon and have a good day.

“ ... we argentines were colonized by spain....”

NO, Mad'un ... you ARE spain ... you are the children of the colonisers! Unless you have a lot on Indian in you!!

“ ... an equitable solution for both Argentina and the UK ...”

The equitable solution was reached in 1833 Rolly. Not the start of a problem. The End !

# 98 RedHole aka Pinocchio, please stop to lie, again there is not funny anymore.

The Nootka Convention is NOT rellevant at all.......rather expose how UK broke the treaty invading a tiny islands that honestly belonged to Argentina......only look to the MaP ....Malvinas is part of continental shelf of Argentina, of course are Adjacent to the continent !!, UK like allways breaking the Law.

The Nootka Convention also knowledged that each nation (UK-SPAIN) was free to navigate and fish in the Pacific and to trade and establish settlements on unoccupied land (in any part).......in 1833 Argentina had a prosperous population living many years in Malvinas .... men, women, children, authorities, government, gauchos, etc ... even garrison with soldiers from Buenos Aires.

ALL THEY WERE EXPELLED by evil means (except a woman and 2 kids, how convenient isn´t ?)

There was not a single British in 1833 ......

Conclusion: All your statments are LIES, one by one...UK is who need show evidences, not just to Argentina....rather to the world whom consider you a liers an almost a criminal people....why do you guess everybody call you pirates ?? are all you lot so basic to understand that ? you can only fool Chagossian ......poor people what you did to them in Diego Garcia.

Today like yesterday, UK continues to violate the law by NOT listening to international calls for negotiation, NOR obeying the UN.

SoFa

Continental shelf = geography = irrelevant! Check out the Islas de Palmas case 1928 :-)

The British DID NOT expell any settlers. Four wanted to leave in January 1833 and were shipped out, together with the trespassing garrison. Before that .... ask the Yanks :-)

In 1833, the man in charge of Vernett's settlement was British!

As for the display of evidence, WE HAVE THE ISLANDS ... so it is up to you to prove your case! Not us!

UN GA Resolutions are ONLY advisory .... obedience is not compulsory :-)

Idiots!

“104 RedHole

”In 1833, the man in charge of Vernett's settlement was British!”

oh yes...sure, a british who pay argentinean workers in Malvinas Islands with Argentinean money printed in 1824 (value of 1 $ peso, and printed in 1829 value 10 $ pesos).

surely he was a good, correct and honest “british”. wow......thats not easy to find !!! well done RedHole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malvinas_Islands_peso

@Malen.
You seem confused. In your first paragraph you tell us you fought for your freedom from a King in Europe. Then in your third paragraph you say that you inherited your territory from that same King? Either you fought for the territory you have OR you inherited it. It can't be both. Which is it?

You Argentines were colonised by Spain? What a joke. You Argentines are Spanish colonials who no longer wanted to be ruled from Madrid. That's a fact!

@Raul
- NATO is a coalition!
- England has not been independent since 1707 and is not a member of NATO, I have no idea why you bought England into the discussion.
- The oil in the Falkland Islands belongs to the Falkland Islanders. Their government issues the licenses, and their government collects the revenues and taxes, NOT the British government.

Argentina had a colonial and genocidal past, I'm glad you accept that. The UK had a colonial and genocidal past, that's a fact. But what is also fact is that every single UK colony which has requested independence has been granted independence. The last one, Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, more than 30 years ago and most of them decades before that. India, which you mention has been independent for 63 years! Canada, Australia, South Africa and New Zealand since 1931. Yet Argentina still occupies Patagonia which it stole from its original inhabitants in the 1870s and the Chaco, where Buenos Aires was still killing off indigenes (Napalpi) in the 1920s!!!!! You really don't have a leg to stand on. And Argentina wants to turn the Falkland Islands into an Argentine colony against the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. At least for the UK colonialism is in the past. For Argentina it is in the present!

Malen
“we argentines were colonized by spain....etc”
Sorry for the earlier comment - I played the odds that you were of colonizer-stock.
If you really are one of the 3% of Argentineans that are pure bred indian original, pre-invasion people, then you REALLY have a problem with the 97% of your fellow Argentineans.
It really puts the whole TFI issue into perspective.

@so_far. Nootka was between the UK and Spain. Argentina was not party to the agreement, so cannot benefit from it in any way.

Oh, and you raise the issue of the Chagossians. What Argentina is asking the UK to do to the Falkland Islanders is exactly the same. Trample all over their rights. Funny how you are offended by what happened to the Chagossians yet you want us to do exactly that to the Falkland Islanders...

100 malen (#)
Argentina was not an empire never. [but was part of one]
Great Britain no longer has an empire .[fact]
We argentines were colonized by Spain. Obviously if you are subjugated and dominated you are going to fight for freedom, [here is where most of us will agree]
If argentina gets the falklands, then the Falkland islanders will be [subjugated and dominated ]
And are [going to fight for freedom ]
Either way your argument is nun and void,
Do you understand that .,,

@98 Red, 1) In 1771 Spain made ​​a reservation of its sovereignty.
U.K. did not.
http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC&pg=PA210&dq=The+struggle+for+the+falkland+island&hl=es&ei=FtagTbrpN-Pj0gGAm_CHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20struggle%20for%20the%20falkland%20island&f=false
Spain allowed to return for to wash the honor SMB
After the British had to leave.
If no agreement, Spain would never return to the English.
Then the war would have erupted.
The plaque of Lieutenant Clayton is irrelevant compared to what was signed in Europe by Carlos III and George III
Use your brain.
2- If authorized by the kingdom of France.
I regret very much their ignorance, I think you should read, study and investigate more.
You should stop reading only British sources, P & P not tell you everything.
3- Louis XV incorporated the islands into the kingdom of France. Testing?.
If you do not buy books, go to the national archives of France.
You are not far, go for the Euro tunnel.
4- The islands does not became crown property. Needed the approval of Parliament. Learn.
5- Nootka. The importance of this treaty is that U.K. again recognized Spanish sovereignty over the islands, unable to settle in regions already occupied by Spain.
6-mmmmm I would not be so categorical.
Liverpool club, Good
Pink Floyd Good
Pepa Midleton Beatiful girl Very Good.
British Lies, very bad.

But surely by breaking all the international laws and rules, by illegally invading the Falkland’s, and taking effectively the people hostage,
Argentina thus forgoes any rights,
And surly cannot claim the rules while breaking them
You lost that right,,
You just cannot have it both ways all the time.

#108
so wrong Robert, nobody want to kick you out from the islands, by contrast Argentina's Constituion clearly and firm state to care the interest and lifestyle of current islanders, so all you lot that try to use that as an excuse is childish....almost patethic.

This kind of behave look C-24 and because of that allways support Argentina position.

Hey Razor your an absolute donkey ,
Yo talk about corruption look at Brittains media its corrupt with phone hacking, minister takung bribes etc. Not to mention London as one of the highest drug laundering operations in the world lol . a coin has two faces go back to kindergarten mate.
At least Argentina has a strong economy with a formidable growth rate
and a well educated work force unlike the situation when Menem was in power.

“by contrast Argentina's Constituion clearly and firm state to care the interest and lifestyle of current islanders”

The intrests and lifestyles of the islanders is not wanting to be under Argentinian controll.

How does that work?

Perhaps the best Argentina and Britain can do is to share the Islands together or participate in mutual agreements. other wise who knows?

Or perhaps Argentina could just drop its ridiculous claim?

Jewett was not sent by the authorities in BA. He was employed by a group of BA businessmen led by Patricio Lynch. The French frigate Braque was bought in 1819, renamed Heroina, and the voyage was an example of private enterprise.

@ 116 Or maybe U.K. end its invasion, which has no historical or legal arguments

mmmm so who have we invaded.
i havent noticed anything.
or is this anoth dream .

@ 119 Perhaps you, like many other British are like them....
http://www.yalosabes.com/images//tres-monos.jpg

106 JA Roberts
Oil in the Falkland Islands belong to the islanders. Your government issued licenses, and the government collects tax revenues and not the British government.

Dear JA Roberts
The problem is sovereignty Roberts, illegally occupying Islanders islands since 1833, Argentine settlers were expelled by the United Kingdom.
Do not get me wrong but not naive, behind all this is the English capital Argentine sea preying as it does in Iraq and intends to do in Libya. This is demonstrated by having a governor imposed by the United Kingdom. It does not take too smart to understand this in a colonial and imperialist power.

The UK had a colonial past and genocide that is a fact.

I'm glad you recognize the genocide English in the world, come to understand this, you will notice that the UK continues its colonial and imperialist policy with the United States today. This is very serious, do not react to past mistakes.

Have you thought about what I said?
Ask an equitable solution for both Argentina and the UK Stop the bitterness of the past, much healthier, think like a statesman and not as holigans
Make an effort and pose a solution to the conflict that is equitable and conform to all and leave the routine of complaining about how evil they are Argentines.
See you soon.

In 1833, the Argentine settlers were not expelled, this is a lie.

Britain has no intention to remain in Libya and has already left Iraq.

Britain has a colonial PAST, just as Argentina stems from Spain's colonial past. Britain since WW2 chose to disassemble its empire granting independence and avoiding the costly wars of independence seen in the French, Spanish and Portuguese empires. Its stated policy is to grant independence to any BOT on request and it maximises self-government in every BOT.

Argentina also has a colonial past, it colonised Patagonia, committing genocide with the near extermination of its native peoples.

The difference is Britain recognises its past, Argentina doesn't. It still wishes to create a colony in the Falklands.

Equitable solution? The sad thing is an equitable solution is not possible in the current climate while people like you believe crap like you just posted, spoon fed propaganda by a Government that uses external “enemies” to keep it in power.

yes both comment 106 we heritated our land from spain (it never was really of them) and we fought to liberate us from them because at first thry didnt wanted any problem roberts???whats wrong with you?? I dont see any contradiction?? are you a kid, with few elements to understand concepts??

Raul - go and check your own Argentina historical Archives - they will tell you that all bar 4 of the civilain settlers STAYED in the Islands in 1833! Cross check them with the ones in London and you will get the same FACT.
It would be so nice if just for once a few Argentines would stop shouting what even they know are blatant LIES.

How can you have inherited your land from Spain and at the same time say you were colonised by them?
You're very fond of telling people they are 'kids', but I've spoken with 8 year olds with a better grasp of logic and rhtoric than you.

te lo explico en castellano
si nosotros tenemos una tierra vienen unos infortunados bandidos a jorobarnos y se adueñan de ella por la fuerza durante un tiempo colonizándonos, después los hechamos porque queremos ser libres de toda dominación y heredemos de por sí lo que ellos ocuparon ilegalmente y siempre fue nuestro ...........como no vamos a heredar algo que siempre fue nuestro y nos ocuparon por la fuerza?? para mí es bien obvio y poné a esos chicos de 8 a chatear xq acá no se nota gran nivel de retórica de parte de los ingleses, y además el mensaje era para roberts no para vos

“The problem is sovereignty Roberts, illegally occupying Islanders islands since 1833”

I don't think so Raul. The UK has claimed the Falklands openly, legally and continuously since 1765 - long before Argentina existed.

No Argentine settlers were expelled by the British in 1833. A Buenos Aires garrison was. The British minister at BsAs protested the garrison and Mestivier's appointment. When they did not leave, they were removed. It was not an Argentine garrison because BsAs under Rosas at the time was not part of the United Provinces. And when BsAs rejoined the UP everything Rosas did was repudiated. It was an illegal garrison. Except for 4, all of the civilians freely chose to remain under British rule in 1833. This is all a matter of recorded fact - with many of the documents in the Archivo Nacional.

The UK was in Iraq and is in Afghanistan as part of a COALITION. Does Spain also have a “colonial and imperialist” agenda? There are no British troops in Iraq today. There is a program of withdrawal from Afghanistan. Frankly, your “colonial and imperialist” assertion is simply ridiculous. It does not stand up to scrutiny. As for Libya, there are no British troops there. NATO is providing assistance to the Libyan rebels at their request, to fight a brutal and tyrannical dictator and under a UN Resolution.

Equitable solution for Argentina? Why does Argentina need an equitable solution? Argentina has not lost anything.

@Malvinense. The UK has had an open, continuous and legal claim to the Falkland Islands for 246 years. Argentina has only existed for 201 years. I think that takes care of our historical and legal “arguments”.

I ask Malen a question. The best reply he can come up with is “What's wrong with you?”. Once again Malen: Did you inherit Argentina from Spain or did you fight for it? It can't be both. Either one or the other. Which is it?

es echar
we inherited of facto everything from spain obviously
and second for if you dont understand we fought against realistas (they didnt want to go away, they were happy stealing) to get freedom so we could built a real nation of the people real owners of that territory....we didnt ask them sillily for permission

124 Islander1

Raul - go to see their own historical archive Argentina - they will tell you all 4 bars civilain settlers remained in the islands in 1833! Compare it to London and get the same fact.
It would be nice if for once some Argentines to stop screaming so even they know they are blatant lies.

Dear Islander: Leave the hatred and anger, stop thinking like a statesman holigans and think no one is screaming, with all respect, they are blatant lies.
For us it is our truth and for you is your truth. I do not expect to think like me, but accept that we have our point of view to us is true.
As I said to Roberts: why not propose a principle of equitable solution pursuant to Argentina and the United Kingdom?
Leave the routine of complaining about how bad we are Argentines and think, even a little, a solution according to all alike.
I propose that, I do my share of effort and you do yours. No hard feelings or revanchism.
Do I ask too much?
thank you very much

Malen they do not want to understand
@ 127 J. A Roberts , No matter the time of existence of Argentina, because it is a successor state of Spain.
Roberts remember the year 1764 and the French. Sorry, came late and illegally.

127 J.A. Roberts

Equitable solution for Argentina? Why Argentina needs an equitable solution? Argentina has not lost anything.

For God and all the saints, leave hatred and bitterness.
Take a moment and read what I proposed.
This is not Argentina or the UK, is JA Roberts. Do not take it wrong, if it makes you feel good, insúlteme all you want, I'll understand, but ever propose something constructive through him.
Do not be competing all the time, share something about the problem.
As I told Islander1
Leave the routine of complaining about how bad we are Argentines and think, even a little, a solution according to all alike.
I propose that, I do my share of effort and you do yours. No hard feelings or revanchism.
Do I ask too much?
thank you very much

Pelear por algo que consideras tu herencia es una cosa. Heredar algo es otra cosa totalmente distinta. Quizas pelearon vosotros por lo que consideraba vuestra herencia - el antigue virreino - pero de España heredo Argentina absolutamente nada. España tardo casi 60 en reconocer vuestra independencia!

Puede ser que la retorica nuestra falta a vez - probablement por traduciones malas vuestras. Menos mal no faltamos quando viene a logica y hechos...

Raul. Why don't you start thinking about the Falkland Islanders, who have lived there for 8 and even 9 generations instead of just repeating what your Argentine “statesmen” tell you...

Raul. Why not start thinking about the Islanders, who have lived there for 8 and up to 9 generations instead of simply repeating what the Argentine “statesmen” who say ...

Perfect, I start thinking about the Islanders and that leave more than satisfied.

Now you consider giving a solution to the Argentine and satisfy their claims and leave them satisfied.

thanks

@ Dígame, si Argentina no heredó nada, entonces ¿como explica su existencia y la de los demás países de Latinoamérica?
Le recuerdo que Gran Bretaña reconoció el uti posidetis iuris cuando reconoció a la Argentina como un nuevo estado en 1823 y 1825.
Raul congratulations, well said
Because they arrived there after expelling the Argentine settlers
seems that the boat of Pinedo was empty, big lie.

Comment removed by the editor.

Raul. Argentina's claim is unfounded and will eventually become unsustainable. The Falkland Islander's right to self determination trumps your claim every time. Get used to it.

Malvinenese. Uti Possidentis Juris was not agreed as a method to settle border disputes between South American countries until the Congress of Lima in 1848. That's a long time after 1823 or 1825 AND Argentina did not even attend that Congress in an official capacity.

No settlers of any kind were expelled from the Falklands in 1833. That's a fact which can be corroborated by written documents. Pinedo's boat had an illegal military garrison, plus 4 civilians who freely chose to leave. All the other civilians, about 30 of them, freely chose to stay on the Falklands under British rule. Facts. Hechos. Get used to them.

131 Raul
What constructive suggestions have you come up with? I can't see any.

Malen.
Me encuentras vueltero. Porque? Porque prefiero jugar con hechos en vez de la propaganda de toda la vida emitido por el gobierno Argentino?

Mejor familiarizarte con los hechos.

La gran mayoria del territorio actual Argentino fue robado de los indigenas DESPUES de la independencia. Hasta los años 1860 Argentina no paso al sur del rio Salado, un poco despues hasta la zanja de Alsina. Fijate! Donde esta la zanja de Alsina? Al sur de Patagonia? No! Al sur de la Prov de BsAs! Aparte de excepciones bien fortificados como Carmen de Patagones todo ese territorio pertenecio a los indigenas hasta Roca vino con sus rifles patrias durante los años 1870. Habia partes del Chaco que no estaban bien “controlado” hasta los años 1920.

Porsupuesto importa cuando España reconocio vuestra independencia porque demuestra que España no concedio nada a Argentina a la hora de independencia y que Argentina heredo nada de España. Logico y hecho.

#110 Marvin 33. You are wrong on every point, and I'd need a very long tunnel to get from here to Paris !

Try NOT reading biased and unreferenced works, but instead go to the sources.

The British won the dispute of 1771 and there was NO agreement to leave.

Show me the agreement! You cannot. It does not exist. One source is the letter from Viscount Palmerston to your foreign minister M.Moreno. Written in 1834 it goes through the records. Clearly states that there was NO such agreement.

We won, Spain lost. The only loss of face was Spain's. hence the lies it spread. Spain could not go to war without French backing, and the French were not interested.

The plaque was sufficient. Spain left the same when they removed their people. Argentina was never a player. Nootka gives Argentina nothing. Argentina inherited nothing.

Your stupidity knows no bounds.

Morning all ... Falkland Islands still British.? Yes! Wonderful. And so all is well once again :-)

“The British won the dispute of 1771 and there was NO agreement to leave.”

Anyway the dispute was between Spain and the UK, so had nothing to do with Argentina (which did not even exist in 1771).

Los hechos Malen. Te acuerdas?

J.A. Roberts, Since 1810 the liberators of american speak of uti posedetis iuris. The territory that belonged to Argentina was formed by the former viceroyalty. The Falklands were included.
And the British recognized him as well in 1823 and 1825. Once more. Facts

Marvin33 - Uti Possidetis Juris was not proclaimed in South America until the Lima conference of 1848. Argentina did not attend. Uti Possidetis Juris was not recognised internationally until after 1945. Uti Possidetis Juris remains controversial.

Uti Possidetis Juris does not affect what took place in 1833. Uti Possidetis Juris does not help Argentina at all as regards the British Falklnad Islands.

The British DID NOT recognise Argentine sovereignty over the Falkland Islands ... ever! Argentina DID recognise that all matters were sorted in 1850.

Get a new book Marvin. Better still go to the source material.

No Malvinense.

You are incorrect. Best acquaint yourself with the facts, because there was no talk of Uti Possidetis Juris until 1848. The principle of Uti Possidetis Juris was agreed amongst some (not all) South American countries at the Congress of Lima in 1848. Argentina did not even send a delegate to that conference (only minor officials). This is not made-up fantasy. This is recorded fact.

Nothing that belonged to the former Viceroyalty belongs to Argentina. Argentina fought for independence and managed to acquire some of the former Viceroyalty. Don't forget, Paraguay, Uruguay and parts of Bolivia were also part of the Viceroyalty yet Argentina does not claim them? Because Argentina knows very well that it did not inherit anything from Spain.

The British recognised Argentina as it was in 1825. And in 1825 Argentina did not even go past the Salado del Sur. It certainly did not control the Falkland Islands.

I'm going to bed.

Raul. Argentina's claim is without merit and will eventually become unsustainable. The right of Falkland Islanders trumps self-determination of your claim at all times. Get used to it.

You gave Roberts, alas, could not you with your self-centeredness.
This is not to compete, not to crush the enemy but to share.
This was not a competition.
It is put over the other, which was forcibly evicted from their land and respect the right of others to exist.
The right of expellees to regain their land, eventually supersede the invaders who claim self-determination in foreign lands ...
But in the spirit of revenge, as I think, but through peace, nonviolence and understanding, as Luther King and Mahatma Gandhi proposed.
I think I'm wrong with you, this kind of thinking is too big for you. The put in place the other person exceeded. That was the point.
Too bad Roberts, that hurts ....
I gave in without a fight ...
Thank you very much.

Ok, I'm not going to bed.

Just because you don't agree with me I'm self-centered? Strange.

Nobody was expelled in 1833. Some of the settlers, like Anna Roxas were still living on the Falkland Islands decades later. I think she died in Stanley in the 1870s. It is a complete fabrication, a lie, that all Argentine settlers were expelled.

Oh, the Falkland Islanders must share? OK then. Puerto Deseado was first settled by the British. Are you going to share Port Desire and the territory around there with us? I don't think so...

What you need to understand is that the Falkland Islands are home to the Falkland Islanders. Just like Argentina is home to you even though you stole most of it from its indigenous owners. There were no indigenous people in the Falklands, so at least the Falkland Islanders have any collective guilt about that. You Argentines should!

The Falkland Islanders just want to be left in peace to live their lives as they have done for 9 generations. Most Argentines are from Spain/Italy and have at most been there for 3 generations! Your claim is baseless. It has no foundation. It is built on myth and lies. Stop bullying the Falkland Islanders and let them decide their own future just like you are allowed to decide your future!

In 1833 less than 50% of the settlers were from what is now Argentina.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders

There had been more in 1831, but they were removed following acts of piracy by the USS Lexington. The US not the UK !

“ ... Duncan took seven prisoners aboard the Lexington and charged them with piracy. Also taken on board, Duncan reported, ”were the whole of the (Falklands') population consisting of about forty persons, with the exception of some 'gauchos', or cowboys who were encamped in the interior.“ The group, principally German citizens from Buenos Aires, ”appeared greatly rejoiced at the opportunity thus presented of removing with their families from a desolate region where the climate is always cold and cheerless and the soil extremely unproductive“. However, about 24 people did remain on the island, mainly Gauchos and several Charrua Indians. And although Captain Duncan disabled the canons and burnt the gunpowder, he did not destroy or raze the settlement. The settlement continued to trade on Vernet's account ...”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders

The book The last Colonies by Robert Aldrich and John Connell page 200

1833 ' The Brithish commander raise the Union Jack, claimed possession of the islands and EXPELLED the Argentinians.
”The Falklands officially became a Crown colony in 1840, a governor and a few Scotsmen arrived to establish a British pastoral settlement. Argentina hotly disputed the British takeover, and Buenos Aires made continual diplomatic representations over the next 150 years to recover the islands”

British imperialism has no permanent principles, only permanent selfish interests.

” ... On 5 January 1833, ...... 27 of the original Vernet settlers and 2 temporary residents remained in Port Louis. These included 12 gauchos from Argentina and their Capataz (foreman); a Frenchman; 5 Indians from Montevideo, Uruguay; 3 women from mainland South America and their two children. Other nationalities recorded are Irish, Scottish, German, and North American, making up a tiny population of some 7 different nationalities....“

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders

” ... March 1st - We arrived early in the morning at Port Louis, the most Eastern point of the Falkland Islands: The first news we received was to our astonishment, that England had taken possession of the Falklands islands & that the Flag was now flying. — These islands have been for some time uninhabited, untill the Buenos Ayres Government, a few years since claimed them & sent some colonists. — Our government remonstrated against this, & last month the Clio arrived here with orders to take possession of the place. — A Buenos ayrean man of war was here, at the time, with some fresh colonists. — Both they & the vessel returned to the Rio Plata. — The present inhabitants consist of one Englishman, who has resided here for some years, & has now the charge of the British flag, 20 Spaniards & three women, two of whom are negresses. ..”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders

Now MoreCrap, go to your own national archive, read and add to the above the information in the ships log from the Sarandi, throw in the log from the USS Lexington, do a little mathematics and you'll show that your poor authors got it wrong.

Simple!

Very simple :-)

Ps - interesting to note that the captain of the Lexington states - “ ... The group, principally German citizens from Buenos Aires,...”. German citizens! Not Argentines then ??

@Red, ... “March 1st - We arrived early in the morning at Port Louis, the most Eastern point of the Falkland Islands: The first news we received was to OUR ASTONISHMENT, that England had taken possession of the Falklands islands & that the Flag was now flying”
No more words
Of course, London does not belong to England because there are Germans, Turks, Indians, citizens. My God!!!

Not certain quite what point you are trying to make there Marvin33?

Charles Darwin was 'astonished' because he'd been sailing around the coast of South America for some time and had no idea what was happening in the world, or even in Britain.

Also 'sovereignty' and 'possession' are not quite the same in legal terminology. Ownership and control. In 1833 the British once again exercised 'control'. We had little choice, Vernett had exceeded the licence given by Britain and there was a danger that the US would seek possession of the islands. The British action ensured that the rule of law returned to the islands and that the US had no argument. The Americans considered that Vernett's settlers had no official status, certainly not enough for the exercise of a monopoly over seal hunting. They were happy enough with British control of the islands.

Though they may not admit it publicly, they still are!

@Red, By the way, here I recommend this book to find out why UK has no rights over the Malvinas. France included the islands in his kingdom. U.K. no.
It also shows the image of the Medal placed to in obelisk by Bougainville during the incorporation ceremony of the islands into the kingdom of France. Febrero 1764
After, the medal brought the “British governor” of the islands Luis Vernet. strange, not?
During your vacation comes to see her. ;-)
zoom, Red zoom

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Malvinas-nuestro-legado-frances/102115546547419

Idiot boy ... you are offering 'facebook' as evidence! lol Well done, best laugh of the morning :-)))

Like you are offering anything better...wikepedia :-)))

MoreCrap, I've offered you Darwin's diary .... an authentic, contemporaneous account of events in 1833.

That website includes Viscount Palmerston's reply to M.Moreno's complaint of 1833. Palmerston's review of the records clearly shows that there was no 'secret deal' in 1771 and displays considerable surprise at Argentina's obviously reckless claim. It's worth a look.

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F10.2a&keywords=palmerston+islands+falkland&pageseq=163

And yes, I do think that Wikipedia is better than Facebook. It's better referenced for a start.

The book mentioned in the facebook link is in spanish and published in Argentina. Whether it's worth anything or adds anything I'll leave to others to see. My spanish isn't likely to be up to it. However, if it makes bland statements and fails to fully reference its claims, then its just a work of fiction :-)

You Argentines have it all wrong. These are our lslands, not yours. They have never been yours. You can argue as much as you like.
You will have to kill me to take my home from me.
There is some firey Latin blood running through my veins too.
l feel very strongly about this. Just get it through your thick skulls once and for all: You DO NOT own the Falklands, we do!

As usual, nothing new, nothing constructive, even the insults are the same boring, petulant, old tosh.

Marvin33 - sovereignty requires not only the legal right to exercise power, but the actual exercise of such power. Thus, de jure sovereignty without de facto sovereignty is no sovereignty at all.

The French in 1765 saw the British sailing around the islands but did nothing to stop them. The moment that the British were aware of the Spanish however, the British tried to exert control. This was a success until more Spaniards turned up and ejected the British and as you know, the British then threatened war and went back to the islands.

I question your conclusion regarding the French incorporating the Falkland islands into 'France', but as they did not exercise control, then they had not achieved sovereignty !

The British were prepared to exercise control, so were the Spanish - up until 1771 at least.

So we are back where we started, a dispute between Britain and Spain.

Britain left but did not renounce or abandon its sovereignty claim, leaving behind the accepted marks and signs.

Spain left but did not renounce or abandon its sovereignty claim, leaving behind the accepted marks and signs.

Britain went back!

@ Mister Red, is the facebook to book. You wanted something to learn. There you have it.
If in doubt come to Argentina to see her (to medal) :-)))

The Spanish never occupied the Falklands and they have never belonged to the Argentine (Argentina). The dispute about ownership of the Falklands is all about three things. OIL, GAS & FISH. All three are worth billions..
[FRANCE 24 ]
Oil and national fervour
http://www.france24.com/en/20100223-regional-leaders-support- Christina Kirchner - “Britain may have to find a compromise, not in terms of territory, po tentially in terms of revenue sharing,” says Daniel Litvin, director of Critical Resource, a consulting firm in Argentina that focuses on the natural resource industries.

Desire has said that the Liz drilling prospect alone could render up to 400 million barrels of oil, and more than six billon dollars in revenues, with the price of crude oil hovering above 75 dollars a barrel. Adjacent prospects in the area are said to contain billions of barrels more.

“I think the key question is what happens if a lot of oil is actually discovered,” says Litvin. Interest in oil production in the Falklands, as well as diplomatic tensions, could buoy again.

“If not much oil is discovered it remains a rocky, windswept island,” says Litvin. “Nationalistic fervour around oil is greater than just around bits of land.”
[reported last year] [still of interest][Argentina only wants the oil][no interest in the people]
,,

Don't confuse them with real evidence, YouTube and Facebook are all they need. I did have a look at the Facebook site, it was bollocks.

BTW did anyone remember to mention that Utis Possidetic Juris would confer a claim on Uruguay not Argentina as the islands were administered from Montevideo when abandoned by Spain.

@ 155 Dear isolde, nobody wants to take your home, we just want dialogue between governments to agree a solution.
And if do not agree, to carry the case to the ICJ Nothing more.

@159 briton, the problem the Malvinas is predates oil, gas and fishing.

@160 Justin, Come to the museum.
You can say all you want the indigenous people, Vernet British, uti posedetis iuris, and more.
You do not have a single fact to prove without doubt that the islands are British.

There's a flag flying over the Falkland Islands with a Union Jack in the corner .... that's one proveable fact!

No doubt about that :-)

155 lsolde “You will have to kill me to take my home from me.
There is some firey Latin blood running through my veins too”
Again Isolde?
“I'm sorry I listened to what you said and not what you meant”

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2014900/Im-sorry-I-listened-said-NOT-meant-Milk-ads-poke-fun-PMS.html

“ ... As the Henry Jackson Society’s Douglas Murray pointed out: “Argentina is doing what it has always done: play political games. These comments are pretty obscene. The only country that has behaved like a bully boy in relation to the Falklands is Argentina when they decided to invade them. It is easier for Buenos Aires to bash the Brits than get their own house in order, to ratchet up the anti-British sentiment than sort out their economy. .... ”

” ... The Decolonisation Committee, which is made up of 24 members of whom half are from Latin America and the Caribbean, and which includes China, Russia, Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, is clearly a flawed and biased body. It has not ‘de-listed’ any British overseas territories from its list of ‘colonial’ territories which need to be ‘decolonised’, no matter how often the wishes of the populations of these territories have been made clear. The British government is therefore right to continue its approach of informally cooperating with the body in order to put its case across while not joining it or accepting its resolutions...”

http://www.eurasiareview.com/the-return-of-the-falklands-fight-analysis-15072011/

161 Malvinense 1833
@ 155 Dear isolde, nobody wants to take your home

Yes you do; it's in your constitution.

@163MarcosAlejandro,
Very funny Marcos, l'm not being sarcastic.
lf you think l'm bad you should experience my youngest daughter!
Both you & Malvinese1833 say you don't want our homes.
Sr Think wants to deport us all. Some idiots like “I” want to kill us all.
There is nothing to “negotiate”.
As Monty69 says, its in your constitution.
What do you say to that?

@ 162, 164 Red and Henry Jackson Society’s Douglas Murray, maybe too much beer?http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00622/beer_goggles_622180a.swf
or maybe
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00622/beer_goggles_622180a.swf
@165 Monty69 And you think it hurts us that we steal a piece of our country?
I hope someday to have a coffee with Isolde, and playing fútbolr with you.
http://img.thesun.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00622/beer_goggles_622180a.swf
I'm going to bed.

The British claim to the Falklands, and especially to the vast waters around the archipelago, is based on very WEAK historical and juridical grounds, but has mostly been upheld by sheer force, the 'right of the stronger one', shamefully utilized by the Thatcher government for jingoistic and, apparently, selfish, electoral purposes.

The old Empire traits and bad manners of Westminster policies are very slow to come off, and for example they have attacked my small country, Iceland, in a very harsh manner, first by sending on us many warships of HM Navy in the Cod-war dispute in the 1970's, and in 2008 and onwards the Labour cabinet was trying to bully my nation into paying to their Treasury an unbelievably high amount (about 7,200 pounds sterling per each Icelander, newborns and octogenarians included) which was, however, NOT their due, as the Icelandic State was not responsible for the crashed private bank in question. The Icelandic nation (318,000 inhabitants) has repelled those false claims on us in two referendums (2010, 2011), and we beat the British lion in the aforesaid Cod War!

* See here: http://jonvalurjensson.livejournal.com/tag/bullying

'Beat' is such a moot term. The British backed away from the conflict because of Iceland's threat to close the NATO base. That base was deemed as being more important than the fishing industry.

A quick review of the 3 Cod Wars shows that the first petered out due to the First World War, the second resulted in an agreement to send disputes to the ICJ, an agreement Iceland promptly breached causing the third Cod War. All of which where rooted in Iceland habit of unilaterally extending her territorial waters. Still, we all have 200 mile limits these days :-)

As for Iceland's banking cock-up, having a banking system that is so much larger than your own GDP appears a rather stupid arrangement when it comes down to Governments having to back up their banks. If I understand it correctly, it rather looks now as if the frozen assets will be sufficient to cover the majority of losses.

Well done! So, how is your economy these days ?

Oh, and if our claim to the Falklands is so weak, as apparently the British are these, how come that we still have them and that Argentina does not have the cojones to go to the ICJ? Oh, but then Iceland didn't either :-))

Redhoyt, the link you recommended above has an interesting quote right at the beginning of the text.

“As Argentina has resumed its political campaign against the UK over the Falklands, the UK has become more isolated diplomatically and less able to defend the islands militarily.”

This is kind of antithetical to recent, overconfident statements made by FI authorities, isn't it? If I'm not mistaken, they said, as Mercopress reported, that the FI bid to remain British is gaining ever more sympathy all over the world. However, Peter Cannon - who's clearly pro-British - disagrees. Why's that? Who are you supposed to believe? Who's being analytical, and who is being blindly jingoistic?

169 Rotted,
Icelanders already answered Britain by overwhelming majority, Iceland was bullied by the British and got a clear answer: F... Off!!
The Bankers caused the crisis the bankers should pay, so Get used to it :-)))

#168 Jon Valur Jensson
“The British claim to the Falklands, and especially to the vast waters around the archipelago, is based on very WEAK historical and juridical grounds, but has mostly been upheld by sheer force”
Amen.

Tit - who can tell? I did read the article. International support is an ephemeral thing at best, in any situation. And sympathy is free!

The British Government has been ignoring the C-24 for a very long time and it has to be remembered that the C-24 report to the Fourth Committee. The Fourth Committee has not passed a Resolution through to the General Assembly since 1988. What happens this year we'll see in October.

Interestingly more countries have applied to be members of the Fourth Committee this year than in any years previous. Maybe that means something, maybe not.

The reality is that the UK can quite rightly claim to be meeting its obligations under Article 73 of the UN Charter and neither the Fourth Committee or the C-24 have any remit with regards to resolving sovereignty disputes. That job falls to the ICJ. The result? No change I suspect. The only chance that Argentina has is to take it's claim to the ICJ. This option has been available to them ever since the ICJ was formed, but they have not taken that road. There are no other paths!

MoreCrap - as Britain seized around 4 billion in Icelandic banking assets, and as Iceland is currently taking its former prime minister to court for , at the least, criminal negligence, it would seem that Iceland will pay!

Getting religious is unlikely to help you :-)

I won't go down to the technical, legalistic stuff, as I'm not familiar with international legislation regarding the matter. So let's keep to the concrete reality. Is it or is it not true that the UK doesn't have any strong outside support in its dispute with Argentina over all those islands? The author's answer is that no, the UK doesn't have any such support, and that it is losing the diplomatic battle. He even briefly suggests the UK is now less able to enforce its presence through military force. And even though the piece is written in an exaggerated and emotive style, the author seems to be more willing to tackle the facts than is FI government, as seen in the weird statements it released just a week ago.

I am not moved by your argument that there is the need to get 'strong outside support' for the status quo or some alternative state.

De facto ownership does not demand such constant declarations of third-party support.
Does Russia solicit support from third-party countries to validate its desire to remain Russia? Does Wales solicit to remain Wales? Or Gibraltar to remain Gibraltar?

No, de facto ownership and international law do not need constant psychological reinforcement; rebuttals when challenged - yes, of course, but that is all.

Again, who can tell. Remember we are dealing with politicians and diplomats. Bigger bunch of rogues never existed. Populations do not care. It is ulikely that politicians really do either.

There are 197 members of the UN. Argentina can, at best, claim the support of 30-40 of those. But to what extent they have support is a different thing. With few exceptions the support is only for negotiations. Nothing else. No pre-set outcome, although Argentina would like to see it otherwise.

As for the military. The world is in recession, but even after our own drastic cuts we still spend the 4th largest amount of any country in the world on our military. Whether that's enough, well I suppose that there's only one way to tell !

Argentina's forces are in a worse state so I suppose she would need the support of her neighbours. The question is, would they be willing to go to war for Argentina? We would fight back!!

So, you tell me!

And the technical, legalistic stuff IS the concrete reality ........ it's called politics :-)

Haughty, pompous, self-righteous Redhoyt, obviously speaking on British interests, maybe even paid to do so, I hardly bother to answer you now, except that we here never subscribed to any obligation to obey that Hague court in that fisheries matter, and that I've gone through all the mutually agreed law about bank deposit guarantees, and there is not the faintest hint there that the Icelandic public should be paying a single penny to your out-of-date imperialist State. Try to earn your money yourselves!

Stop treating others as the Fiji-Islanders and Haitians have been manipulated and treated like slaves by your forerunners in those imperialist establishments! There is nothing respectable about that! Keep to you own island!

PS. And I'm not a socialist. I'm not speaking out of some prejudice against (moderate) capitalism. And now start earning your income without exploitation of the poor!

@GeoffW

I'm not discussing legitimacy here. I'm discussing the balance of power. Russia doesn't need others' support for keeping being Russia because no one is trying to take Russia away from Russia. The FI, on the other hand, is de facto disputed territory. So yes, third parties' positions matter, specially now that - at least according to the author Redhoyt recommended - the UK is less able to impose itself against Argentina. Whether, and how much, other countries are willing to support Argentina or the UK, has an impact on how the FI sovereignty issue will be dealt with. Consider that, if the UK had overwhelming support throughout the world, or at least uncompromising support from other great powers, there wouldn't be any chance that a negotiation would be happening between the UK and Argentina. Argentina itself wouldn't even think in claiming sovereignty over those islands, if that was the case. That, on the other hand, there's pressure for such negotiation to take place, suggests that the UK lacks such significant outside support. And the less outside support party A has, and the more support given for the opponent party B, the more likely is that party A will come out as the loser from the negotiation table. In sum, even though outside support doesn't have an effect on perceived moral legitimacy, it affects concrete reality.

And our ex-Prime Minister G. Haarde will be found innocent of all charges. We have, however, now the by far worst government since Iceland became independent in 1918. Yes, it's an extremist socialist/social-democratic one!

Cf.: http://jonvalurjensson.livejournal.com/10738.html ––and: http://jonvalurjensson.livejournal.com/10738.html

and less able to defend the islands militarily.”

http://en.mercopress.com/2011/07/16/raf-largest-ever-dual-purpose-aircraft-voyager-can-carry-300-troops-or-100.000-litres-of-fuel

Jon Valur Jennsen sounds a lot like our dear old Think. He wouldn't........ would he?
Well Jon boy, and what do you know of Fiji? Have you ever been there?
You want us to keep to our own island. l presume you mean the British lsles.
Pity your ancestors didn't keep to their own country too,instead of murdering, looting and burning most of western Europe.
l suppose thats ok though, just like its ok for the Argentines to murder the native lndians in Patagonia.
But of course bring up everything the British did. ls that ok by you?
Self-righteous hypocrites like you make me sick.

TWIMC

Nice to read the opinions of two intelligent posters as Brazilian”Forgetit87” and Icelandic ”Jon Valur Jensson”.

Seems to be that the 'strong outside support' for the Argentine position is growing exponentially, not only at the United Nations but even here, at the comment section of the Mercosur and Falklands News Agency…….

PS:
(180) Isolde
It’s ”Jensson”, not Jenssen.
He is an Islænding, not a Dane, you…. you ………….woman.
And stop acting like a little girl.
Don’t point fingers at everybody else…
It is you, caught red-handed by the Headmaster….
It is you that will have to take responsibility and face the consequences…..

No problem, nothing Argentina can do. The UNGA is an impotent organisation. No Resolution since 1988. Will this be the year for another? October will tell. But even then, not important. The British can easily ignore any carcophony from the little states ..... no problem! An annoying little noise, nothing more :-)

“Try to earn your money yourselves”

Perhaps you could give our deposits back first?

@ Red, Your flag in the corner only reminds us of pirate theft of their country. It proves nothing.
@168 Jon Valur Jensson, “The British claim to the Malvinas, and especially to the vast waters around the archipelago, is based on very, very, very, WEAK historical and juridical grounds, but has mostly been upheld by sheer force” His own lawyers recognize it. They know. They refuse to negotiate.
@182 Red, the world looks.
@180 “l suppose thats ok though, just like its ok for the Argentines to murder the native lndians in Patagonia.”
Excuses and more excuses to justify his usurpation. Smokescreen.

Argentina can do NOTHING! I said that 12 months ago ... and still it remains true!

Force can work too :-)

Get used to it!

:-)

Sorry, Argentinians, I should have used the name Malvinas no less than the Falkland Islands.

Isolde (beautiful name, and the saga of Tristan and Isolde is beautifully told in one of the medieval Icelandic sagas), you are thinking very far back. Actually, the vikings were quite fierce plunderers and killers, SOME of them, whereas others were merchants and discoverers (all the way to America), colonizing newly found countries like Iceland and Greenland, and traveled through Russia down to Constantinopel, and were hired even by the emperors there as his life guard. The viking appellation was no worse than so that some of them became kings, like St Olav of Norway, and excellent King Harold the harderada, killed while trying to save you Anglo-Saxons from the Frogs in 1066!

Remember: the Viking Age was ending in the 11th Century. Of course Christian faith bettered those peoples' lives (one of the evil ones was Önundr 'barnakarl', meaning a man of children, namely because he liked throwing infants on spears to his fellow mates). But the effects of the vikings are long ago disappeared in the far past. The Haitian and Fiji Islanders are, on the other hand, still taking the adverse consequences of merciless colonialism. You should read Tolstoy's account. And Westminster is still trying and pretending to be a lion, as they did in the Malvinas War.

Jon Valur Jensson from Iceland says to the British:
“Try to earn your money yourselves!
”Keep to you own island!
The Irish:
”Go on home British soldiers !!
Scotland:
Scotland should be separate and equal to England.
Argentina:
Britain is a crude colonial power in decline and needs to negotiate over Malvinas islands dispute.
US administration has also supported calls for negotiations over what it now refers to as the 'Malvinas'
Argentina is supported by its neighbours throughout the Americas.

Britain answer: We have a new plane, can carry 300 troops or 100.000 litres of fuel(@179)
Brute power over diplomacy.

Jon, the islands are called the Falklands in English and Las Malvinas in Spanish. You can use whichever name you like. By the way the Spanish name did not gain currency until almost a century after the islands were first known as The Falkland Islands. The Spanish name is just a corruption of what the French call the Falklands.

Perhaps you should remember that the British Empire was ended decades ago. Every British colony which has requested independence has been granted it. Starting with the Dominions (Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand) in 1931 and the biggest colony in most respects, India, in 1948. That is more than 60 years ago. By the early 1970s almost all British colonies were independent. Fiji has been an independent country since 1970!

Haiti was never a British colony. It was French and then Spanish before that. It has been independent since 1804!!

The Falklands war would never have happened if Argentina had not mounted their armed and illegal invasion.

Perhaps you should stop pretending to be an expert because the facts are starting to trip you up a bit...

188 J.A. The islands appear on maps with names Spanish like Samson or the Giants, long before Falklands. Sorry.
Jon Valur Jensson : This is the song you hate the English
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDgO6NIXe0A

Yes, the “Islas de Sansón” might have been the Falkland Islands. We will never know for sure but that doesn't change the fact that the name “Malvinas” is nothing more than a corruption of the French name, and almost a century older than the “Falkalnds” name.

Anyway, the “Islas de Sansón” were named by a Spanish explorer so have nothing to do with Argentina.

187 Marcos Alejandro--Jon Valur Jensson from Iceland says to the British:
“Try to earn your money yourselves!
”Keep to you own island!--They were not saying that when British investors banked millions of £s with their banks that then collapsed.
The Irish:
”Go on home British soldiers !!--------- Idiot boy!! Northern Ireland is part of Britain and will remain so, because the majority of the people there want to remain part of the crown. And just because a few nutters go about bombing and killing innocent human beings with banners saying Brits go home you say that we should not protect those innocent ones and should go back to the mainland, your an idiot of profound proportions.
Scotland:
Scotland should be separate and equal to England.----- I agree with you on that one they should, and if it comes to pass the English will be better off tax wise as the Scots will have to start their own health service and welfare service that puts a burden on the rest of the UK, so bring it on, cheers for trying to make my pay packet go that much further.
Britain is a crude colonial power in decline and needs to negotiate over the Falklands islands dispute.---- I have altered a word in your assumption that we should negotiate over the Falklands as I do not recognize that swear word it only exists in the warped minds of Argentinians. A person only negotiates when there is something to negotiate, as there is nothing to negotiate how can we negotiate? You really are a very silly little boy that does not know the meaning of the word negotiate.
US administration has also supported calls for negotiations over what it now refers to as the Falklands----- Again as you notice I have changed the wording as I say that word does not exist. America as we keep telling you thickos as always tried to mediate in your dispute, notice I say your dispute as we have nothing to dispute.
Argentina is supported by its neighbours throughout the Americas. the same ones who stab you in the back. Idiot boy.

Jon Valur Jennsen sounds a lot like our dear old Think. He wouldn't........ would he?

Bang on the nail, both like the word “ haughty ”

I didn't need Mr or Ms. J.A. Roberts's help to know that Haiti was never a British colony. I have never said it was British, but talked about colonialist policies, that applies equally to Haiti and the Fiji Islands, and the lessons are still to be seen by ignorant, blindfolded or willfully misinterpreting people.

I was a research student in Cambridge University when the Falklands war broke out. I followed the events closely, on the TV stations and the daily weekend newspapers, and found very helpful material in the University Library, especially in one book of legal expert. So I am not quite new to this issue, J.A. Roberts!

Maybe I can find again my letter to the editor of The Times (of London) and to the Rt Hon. Prime Minister at 10 Downing Street, Mrs Thatcher, summing up the main arguments speaking for Argentine's rights in the dispute.

I lived for four years in Cambridge, of happy memory, and have no reason to hate the British, but I loathe any bullying taking place by their authorities against weaker, innocent nations.

Here you go Jonah, update your education !

http://www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf

Argentina had no rights in the dispute, she still has no rights. Which is why, after 178 years the islands have been under British control. Owned since 1765. The argument with Spain is long over. Argentina was never a player!

Morning all - quiet isn't it. Election not yet got going? Or is Cristina afraid of another slap from the British politicians? She could lose face........ all that plastic :-)

193 Jon Valur Jensson

''but I loathe any bullying taking place by their authorities against weaker, innocent nations.''

In that case. can I ask you your opinion of the bullying tactics used by Argentina against the Falkland Islands?
These include the banning of charter flights to and from the islands to disrupt our tourism industry, the closing of ports to vessels travelling to and from the islands and political pressure put on Argentina's neighbours to do likewise, interference in our relations with other South American countries, and wilful overfishing of joint fish stocks with the aim of destroying our self- sufficient economy.
If this isn't bullying, then what is?
And before you say that we are the UK, educate yourself about the nature of self- governing overseas territories.

LOL Argentina a bullied innocent! Wow, is that the result of a Cambridge education ?

More for the education update -
1) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml - check out Chapter XI and Article 73 ... you'll see that the UK ios fully meeting its obligations. Argentina on the other hand is ignoring Article 74.

2) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml - A contemporaneous review of the evnts of 1833 writeen in 1834 by Viscount Palmerston in response to Argentina's complaint.

3) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml - you may not have said that Haiti was British but it was obvious that you thought it! Try bringing yourself up to date. Please note that the vast majority on this list WANT to remain British.

4) http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/index.shtml - welcome to the Empire :-)))

bullying bullying
what do you call that?? If a UK newspaper calls you squidmillonaires i think you are making money overfishing argentine resources. If you can eat strange and exotic animals (cocodrilos tail) in your restaurants i dont see where is the economic blockade. If last year you had 6000 tourist arriving in cruises in one day (i remember the article) i dont see where is the bullying tactic.
bullying you the british over 200 years only by force you have been here stealing our resources

My first clause on my last comment should have ended like this (sorry, folks):
“... and the lessons are still to be seen, except by ignorant, blindfolded or willfully misinterpreting people.”

Redhoyt (is that your name?!) and Monty69 (funny name), you are very keen on replying to my comments. I assume the British administration hires people like you on such errands, as we in Iceland also experienced in the Icesave issue.* Of course it is easier to pay some lads to distribute British propaganda on their matters of great financial interest, than to wage wars, etc.

And the Britishbulldog (at 8:39 pm) defends British dominion over a part of Ireland. Doesn't surprise me. He dares to makes a comparison of British imperialism and the financial adventures of some private bankers of Icelandic origin, but actually living in London and, moreover, not taxpayers in Iceland, because they chose England for that! The British Financial Surveillance Authority gave that Landsbanki its full right to operate in England; the FSA should blame itself for that, and much more!

* On the Icesave issue, a colleague of mine, engineer and science history teacher Loftur Altice Þorsteinsson, Esq., has written very informative articles, such as:

25.05.2011: Complaint to the EU Commission because of jurisdictional infringements by Britain and the Netherlands.
http://altice.blogcentral.is/blog/2011/7/1/kvortun-til-framkvaemdastjornar-esb-vegna-brota-bretlands-og-hollands/

14.04.2011: Why Iceland is not responsible for Icesave
http://altice.blogcentral.is/blog/2011/7/1/kvortun-til-framkvaemdastjornar-esb-vegna-brota-bretlands-og-hollands/

02.03.2010: Iceland wants legal rights in the Icesave quarrel
http://altice.blogcentral.is/blog/2011/7/1/kvortun-til-framkvaemdastjornar-esb-vegna-brota-bretlands-og-hollands/

25.01.2010: The Colonial Powers bear Complete Responsibility for the Icesave Accounts.
http://altice.blogcentral.is/blog/2011/7/1/kvortun-til-framkvaemdastjornar-esb-vegna-brota-bretlands-og-hollands/

Goodness, Malen, where were you dragged up?
You don't need a Cambridge education to tell you not to believe everything you read in the newspapers!

You can think what you like. There are people in the world who believe all kinds of bizarre things based on what they read in the newspapers. Read some more of the paper that that article came from and you'll see what kind of ideas you are associating yourself with.

Actually, the sheer arrogance of you as an outsider telling me what you 'think' about the effects of your country's actions on me makes me think the Mail would be right up your street. What would you know about it? Err...nothing.

''The Daily Mail.....like 20 minutes in a mental hospital''

Monty I know how to get my own conclusions of what I read in Daily mail in Mercopress in every way of media squidmillonairesssssssssss
I dont need you to explain me nothing
Good points Jon Valur
Interesting to learn about Iceland and you should find that letter

198 Jon Valur Jensson

Why would you assume that I a) am in the pay of the British 'administration', whatever that may be, b) a lad, and c) even remotely interested in anything to do with Iceland???

Actually, as a Falkland Islander, I have the national obsession with Landrovers and would dearly like to roam the interior of Iceland in a Landrover 90.

Beyond that, I couldn't care less.

And I asked you a direct question. Are you planning to answer it?

And Cambridge....which college and year?

“ .. I assume the British administration hires people like you on such errands ...” Ahhh paranoia. Should have guessed. Actually I'm British, retired and living in Thailand. The rest is all my own work ... oh, and my Hoyt is red :-)

Nice links but tell me, if Iceland is not responsible, why are you taking you ex-prime minister to court?

Monty69, OK, you may be a Falkland Islander, that would at least be a motive enough to stick to the interests of Great Britain.

I was at CU, and at St John's College, in 1979–1983.

Redhoyt, the narrow majority of the socialist parliament in Iceland was not taking the ex-prime minister to court because of Icesave, nor because Iceland should be seen as responsible for that, as you seem to take for granted, in your ignorance of that whole matter. You are not quarreling here with an ignoramus on the case – being the chairman of Þjóðarheiður––samtök gegn Icesave (National Honour––a Coalition against Icesave), I have perhaps written up to a 100 articles on Icesave, mostly in Icelandic, a few though in English, as here: http://jonvalurjensson.livejournal.com/tag/icesave . And this one serves you well: INNOCENT ICELAND WILL RESIST AND RISE AGAIN = http://jonvalurjensson.livejournal.com/tag/icesave

Thanks, malen! And now I have managed to find those two letters of mine. And, then, to my surprise, I discover that they were at least FIVE that I wrote:

1) A letter to the Prime Minister, dated in Cambridge 4 May, 1982.
2) A letter to the Hon. Norman St John-Stevas, MP, dated 4 June, 1982.
3) A letter to the editor of the Sunday Times, dated 4 June, 1982.
4) A letter to Mr Tony Benn, MP, dated 16 June, 1982.
5) A letter to the letters' editor of the Sunday Times, dated 29 June, 1982.
Some of these letters were quite long––a total of 11 typewritten A4 pages.

@190 J.A. Roberts Error, my dear Watson.
Sanson and Giants are the Malvinas.
Malvinas comes from Malouines, sailors Saint Malo, the first inhabitants of the Malvinas was given this name.
hahahaha Spain has a lot of history related to Argentina.

' Jon Valur Jensson ' sounds like an 'implanted pirat' name to me.... maybe this implanted dane should foxtrot back to denmark and give iceland back to the inuit....

Here is one of the longer letters; I will have to give it here in a few entries, can't squeeze it into one entry:

A letter to the Editor of the THE SUNDAY TIMES
4 June, 1982.
Sir,––It was surprising to see a Latin American repeating one of the most successful propaganda plots of the British in your letters column (30 May). The Falkland Islands are not “more than 450 miles from mainland Argentina”, as Mr Erica maintains, although indeed Port Stanley, almost the farthest point of the islands, happens to be so. (Who would agree with saying there are 500 miles from mainland Britain to France, even if that happens to be the distance to Nice?!) To give you more exact figures, there are some 190 international nautical miles from the nearest Argentine point (Staten Island) to the archipelago : 215 miles from Tierra del Fuego : and some 265 miles from the nearest point of the continent itself.

The myth of the 4–500 miles between Argentina and the Falklands has sadly been perpetuated by the very misleading maps of the area in British newspapers showing the 200 miles exclusion zone. Any careful reader should have noticed that that the line wasn't drawn correctly, for how could it be a regular radius while the islands are not shaped like a circle? Secondly, those maps all made the distance to Argentina seem far more than it actually is.

Mr Erica goes from bad to worse by implying that Argentina is claiming sovereignty over the Falklands simply because they are on the continental shelf. It's no use ignoring the fact that Argentine claims are primarily historical and legal, based on the right of first settlement, bought by the Spanish from the French, continued by the former (under rule from Buenos Aires), until the Argentine republic took over as the lawful heir. (This history is succinctly summed up by .....
[To be continued in another entry.]

Corrigendum:
My letter to Norman St John-Stevas, MP, was dated 4 May (not June), 1982.

@ Jon Valur Jensson
Spain did not buy to France. Spain offset for their expenses to Mr. Bougainville.
The bought is British propaganda.

“and found very helpful material in the University Library, especially in one book of legal expert”
Can you tell us about this? About Malvinas case? thank you

206 Jon Valur Jensson, Very interesting, now you will have more space after my comment, please disregard the comment of looser Frank the Yank @205.

Jonah - quoting your own letters, how very egotistical !

The Falkland Islands are British. The historical dispute was between Spain and Britain. Argentina was never a party and inherited nothing under the Uti Possidetis Juris principle. Britain won the argument with Spain..... Argentina is irrelevant.

Still is!

As for Icesave, I know very little and care even less. I understand that Britain has frozen assets which will be used to compensate those who lost. I also understand that both Britain and Holland are still pursuing the matter.

Can I assume that your economy has finally recovered and that you are now sitting on a pile of cash? .... ooops, typo ... that should have been 'ash' :-)

“until the Argentine republic took over as the lawful heir.”

This is totally false

Jon Valur Jensson - the implanted Dane- is obviously no stranger to waffling..... he must have been hoping to get paid by the column inch.

Narco... foxtrot oscar... there's a good chap.

Direct continuation of the letter (started in No. 206):

(This history is succinctly summed up by The Times Atlas of World History, p. 227, in the following words: “1770–1820 Spanish. 1820–33 Argentine. 1833 British.”) The popular myth that the British invasion of the islands in 1833 was based on the right of first discovery (1592 & 1690) has no validity, for in those times “the only decisive principle to legitimate acquisition of territories in the New World was that of real, i.e. effective possession, excluding mere 'discovery' as a title to acquisition of sovereignty” (Dr Hermann Weber, in his juridical study, “Falkland-Islands” oder “Malvinas”? Institute of International Affairs, University of Hamburg, 1977, p. 192). The 1833 invasion was a sheer act of colonial expansion, in breach of international law (and, in fact, of the Monroe declaration as well, even if US self-interests provoked the British to invade).

But as Mr Erica seems to insist on a merely secondary argument, it is well to remind your readers that the geographical facts are substantially in favour of Argentina:

1) The whole archipelago is on the Argentine continental shelf, the zone of 600 feet deep stretching over 440 miles from the mainland, compared to a mere 10–50 miles from most other South American states. If you don't count this as an argument, then can the British claim any right to retain the Orkney and Shetland Islands in face of the Norwegian request to have that 'pledge' back on the prompt payment of a dowry due to the crown? The Falkland Islands are no less a natural part of Argentina than the Shetland Islands are of Scotland.

2) The nearest Argentine point is merely 190 miles from the islands.

3) Separate fishery limits for the Falklands would unduly restrict the full 200 miles limits of Argentina –– which is unfair in the case of a 30 million nation on the one hand and some 1800 people on the other, –– the latter not even making any real use of those waters.

[Contd.]

Paranoid, egotistical ... what do you think that your inaccurate letter of 1982 is likely to add to the debate Jonah?

I'll let you know, nothing!

Unable to get your facts right in 1982 may be down to ignorance, but not attempting to update your knowledge when better sources are now available is merely a display of ignorance.

As for geography, I suggest you refer to the Isas de Palmas case 1928. Now that information WAS available to you in 1982 .... an example of poor research perhaps? Geography is irrelevant in international law. Don't believe me ... then check.

And 'unfair' .... lol, wow, that's one hell of an argument.

Paraoid, egotistical, ignorant ..... and naive too it seems. Unfair, :-)))!

'2) The nearest Argentine point is merely 190 miles from the islands.'

The nearest point of Greenland is only 153.7 miles from Iceland....

So your point is exactly what ?

@ 213 Everyone wrong.
The British noooooooooooooooo, eh Red?

You are easily excitable, as your comrades-in-arms here, “Redhoyt” – it appears! But I continue with that letter to The Sunday Times (3rd and last part):

4) The islands are ill-manageable without service from the mainland, except at a huge cost per capita.

Finally, I am not bypassing the claim that the islanders have a right of self-determination. This, however, is a case of just one more misunderstanding. Their right to be there depends in the first place on the sovereign right* of their country to occupy the islands, not vice versa (cf Dr Weber, op.cit., pp. 110ff & 193). No state can take over the lawful territory of another and claim sovereignty over it on the basis of its immigrants' right of self-determination many years later.

These facts are incontestable, at least in so far as they are allowed to be heard! I call upon the British Government and Parliament not to yield to the Falklanders' stubborn and costly wishes to remain on those islands for ever. Their liberty and democracy can flourish no less in Britain than on those remote islands, and should not be contended to the detriment of justice, still less at the cost of the lives of hundreds of soldiers. My proposal is therefore, let the Argentinians have West Falkland now, and East Falkland in 50 years' time, whereas Britain can keep South Georgia and the other Falklands dependancies indefinitely. Let justice and peace prevail and do not assert British sovereignty where you have no right to do so.

Yours, etc.
Jón V. Jensson,
St John's College,
Cambridge.

[Needless to say, The Sunday Times did not publish this!]

* I meant: The presumed or conceivable sovereign right. (JVJ, 17 July 2011).

1) The whole archipelago is on the Argentine continental shelf,

It is on the South American shelf. Only part of it is Argentina's

”3) Separate fishery limits for the Falklands would unduly restrict the full 200 miles limits of Argentina”

Totally false. The Falklands' EEZ to the west is 60 nmi and does not affect Argentina's 200 nmi

“ ..... These facts are incontestable ..”

Now that, is the most inaccurate (and egotistical) statement of all :-)

Justice and peace have prevailed, the islander's wishes have rightly prevailed and they are fully protected by the UN Charter, and you Jonah, are a fool!

Get off your high horse and do some serious research. You'll find that you are wrong!

Uncontestable British sovereignty is what we have, and that is right :-)

@213, 214
The popular myth that the British invasion of the islands in 1833 was based on the right of first discovery (1592 & 1690) has no validity, for in those times “the only decisive principle to legitimate acquisition of territories in the New World was that of real, i.e. effective possession, excluding mere 'discovery' as a title to acquisition of sovereignty” (Dr Hermann Weber, in his juridical study, “Falkland-Islands” oder “Malvinas”? Institute of International Affairs, University of Hamburg, 1977, p. 192)
It says nothing about the occupation?
...Also shows the image of the Medal placed to in obelisk by Bougainville during the incorporation ceremony of the islands into the kingdom of France. Febrero 1764 Buenos Aires Museum http://www.facebook.com/pages/Malvinas-nuestro-legado-frances/102115546547419

Unfortunately, you Icelandic friend has failed to note that British soivereignty was cemented, not by discover, but by the settlement of 1765. Once gained sovereignty is not easily lost and in the British case it was neither renounced nor abandoned. The French sold their right to a johnny-come-lately Spain. But at least you acknowledge that the dispute was between Spain and Britain. I agree.

Britain reasserted its claim. Spain never has.

Jonah's letter is obviously the product of a 20 something, based on student zeal and naivety and .... it would appear, the product of an over inflated sence of self! Typical student of the late 70's in fact! I remember them well.

As the Times checks the accuracy of its contributors, this one obviously made the bin!

To the Prime Minister,
10 Downing Street,
London.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambridge, 4 May 1982.

Your Excellency,

You must be proud of what your 'boys' have been doing in the South Atlantic. Indeed, can there be any more doubt in the minds of your opposition parties in Parliament that you are deadly serious about the Falkland Islands? If that was your primary concern when you decided to send the Task Force, then may I suggest that enough is enough, –– no more sacrifices of the Argentines' lives are necessary to prove your bloody point.

I am a foreigner and I think that I speak not only for myself but for most other Europeans when I tell you that the attack on the Belgrano was entirely unjustifiable, and that it will spell the end of sympathy for the British in this dispute. This is a clear instance of an unjustifiable measure of war, and that means, notably, that those responsible are guilty of murder in the sight of God and men.

As to the right of Britain to those islands, I think it is right to remind you of the startling evidence which appeared ....

--------

I stop here for a while; will continue with this letter in another entry. (I shall be republishing these letters later on, and then with the underlinings used occasionally in the letters.)

I invite “Redhoyt” to enjoy him- or herself in excessive remarks; that's very helpful. As you can see from my letter to The Sunday Times, my end-proposal there, I am not the extremist in this matter. And stop yelling about Argentine invasion – it was a rather peaceful one, whereas the British are mainly responsible for so much of the manslaughter. But let us now pay our respect to all the deceased ones and hope for a FAIR solution to this otherwise ongoing dispute.

PS. “Redhoyt”, my real name is Jón (= John, Johannes), not Jonah. What's yours? –And I was in my 33rd year when I wrote those letters. Do you seriously think Cantabrigians are intellectually immature at that age?!

Jon Valur Jensson
The only country that did express reservation of sovereignty was Spain
http://books.google.com.ar/books?id=Ip-9_W7efbAC&pg=PA210&dq=The+struggle+for+the+falkland+island&hl=es&ei=FtagTbrpN-Pj0gGAm_CHBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CCkQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=The%20struggle%20for%20the%20falkland%20island&f=false
@ 220 Do not lie.

The Argentine invasion was a 'peaceful' one ! Wow .... Ask the islander's on this site, your blinkered views are unlikely to accord with their memories.

The FAIR solution has already been achieved. It was started in 1833, and has culminated in the increasing degree of self government that the islanders curently enjoy. Fully in accordance with British responsibilities under Article 73 of the Charter.

One day, when the difficult neighbours accept defeat, the Falkland Islanders will be an independent people. Nothing fairer than that.

“ ... Do you seriously think Cantabrigians are intellectually immature at that age?!...”

I do now. You don't seem to have intellectually matured much since either. And by publishing your 'memory lane' letters I can see that your ego has not diminished.

Do some research. You still have much to learn!

ps you'll always be a jonah to me :-)

Marvin - read the final document of 1771. Both countries effectively reserved their claims. ” ... a reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but at British insistence this was removed from the final text of the Anglo-Spanish agreement. The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated: ' … that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands.' In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute – both countries’ rights were left untouched, Britain’s as well as Spain’s..... '

More work needed Marvin33 :-)

“Unable to get your facts right in 1982 may be down to ** ignorance **, but not attempting to update your knowledge when better sources are now available is merely a display of ** ignorance. **”

What?

You know, Redhoyt, writing incoherent stuff on the internet may be a sign of laziness, but refusing to improve your text after proof-reading it is merely a sign of laziness!

:)

Quite right .. I DO check it ... and still miss typo's ... I blame this bl**dy wireless keyboard (must be the argentine in me :-)

To Jon Valur Jensson

Iceland …………… a Nation and a People I profoundly admire.

The one thing that all British jingoists fear most is common sense…..... That’s why they will accuse you of any imaginable thing.

I can see that this procedure has already begun against you….

Cher Isolde makes you even personally responsible, as the good Viking you are, of having burnt their gloomy churches, killed their parsimonious men, raped their pretty sheep and eaten their fatty women ;-)

Please keep the good work.
A pleasure to have you on board.

Respectfully.
El Think.

'Gloomy churches' Think? Beware, your new found friend is a theologian and researcher (is that a job?).

As for 'jingoism', I'll have you know that I studied that at Cambridge (a liitle known educational establishment just outside Oxford) between 1979 and 1833 ... sorry, 1983 when I had attained the great age of 33 (too many 3's Tit?).

Didn't go well, but as Tit knows I managed a first class honours in 'Gibberish' (the 'Rubbish' and 'Yiddish' courses having been cut due to the recession caused by Iceland).

Still, at 33 I knew it all.

But then we all did, didn't we Think? No fool like an old fool .... eh?

:-)

@225 Red, wrong very wrong The declaration is of the Spanish King

“that the ENGAGEMENT of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to RESTORE to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot NOR OUGHT in ANY WISE to affect the question of the PRIOR RIGHT of SOVEREIGNTY of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands.”
See if the Spanish king saving English right hahaha :-)))))

Well my computer must not have liked that! 2nd go!
Think,
l couldn't care less whether his name is Jonnsen, Jonssen,Jonsson or even Jansen. He sounds like your clone with his“haughty” as someone else picked up. And he is still as wrong as you.
His history is also shakey as Harold Godwin, the last Anglo-Saxon king was from the royal house of Wessex and definitely not a Viking.
ln fact Harold's forces had just decisively defeated the Vikings at the Battle of Stamford Bridge in Yorkshire in 1066 when he had to hurry south to meet the Normans.
He lost that battle because his men were so weary and his infantry was still on the march.
So thats rubbish for a start.
Of course the Vikings were peaceful traders etc, just like the Argentines. ha ha Ask all their neighbours.
2) Jon boy, the Belgrano was an armed enemy warship, what did you want us to do? Greet it with flowers? What were the Argentines trying to do to our ships in Gibraltar, take the crews out for tea, maybe?
You had better read up abit more & stop listening to Uncle Think

” ... The Argentine 2007 pamphlets say (English p. 1, Spanish p. 4) that the agreement contained: … a Declaration by which Spain restored Port Egmont to the British in order to save the honour of the King of England, making express reservation of its [= Spanish] sovereignty over the whole of the Malvinas Islands, and also of an Acceptance of this Declaration in which Great Britain
remained silent as to the Spanish reservation of rights.

THAT IS UNTRUE.

Such a reservation of Spanish rights had originally been proposed in December 1770 during the negotiations, stating that the agreement “cannot prejudice the anterior rights of the king of Spain to those islands”, but at British insistence this was removed from the FINAL TEXT of the Anglo-Spanish agreement.

The agreement as actually signed in London on 22 January 1771 merely stated: ' … that the engagement of his said Catholick Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannick Majesty the possession of the port and fort called Egmont, cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands.

In other words, the question of the prior right of sovereignty was left as it had been before the dispute – both countries’ rights were left untouched, Britain’s as well as Spain’s....... However, Argentina has constantly REPEATED A FALSE VERSION of this declaration although the original text is EASILY AVAILABLE, and the false version has been stated by many others too, such as Professor Dolzer, who says: “it has to be observed that Spain explicitly reserved her
rights to the Islands while Britain at no point addressed the issue of sovereignty.” A reading of the original texts confirms that both countries’ rights were reserved.... '

ORIGINAL SOURCES .... that's where you make your mistakes Marvin33

(229) Isolde

You say:
”His history is also shakey as Harold Godwin, the last Anglo-Saxon king was from the royal house of Wessex and definitely not a Viking.”

I say:
Other than ”King Harold Godwinson” being the son of “Godwin of Wessex”, one of the most powerful lords in England under the Danish (Viking) king Cnut the Great and Icelandic (Viking) lass Gytha Thorkelsdóttir, I can’t see any Viking connection either……………
Chuckle chuckle ™

@ in other words, the commitment to restore the port can not and should not affect your right to sovereignty over the islands. (King Spanish)
In the link is the UK's acceptance
You and Pepper are the only ones who do not understand something so clear :-)))))

“ ... if, at or after the restitution to be made, the Spanish commander should make any protest against his Majesty's right to Port Egmont, or Falkland's Islands, it is his Majesty's pleasure that the commander of his ships should answer the same by a counter-protest, in proper terms, of his Majesty's right to the whole of the said islands, and against the right of his Catholic Majesty to any part of the same....”

“ ... that this transaction was effected with the greatest appearance of good faith, without the least claim or reserve being made by the Spanish officer in behalf of his Court.”

”The undersigned trusts, that a perusal of these details will satisfy M. Moreno, that the protest which he has been directed to deliver to the undersigned, against the re-assumption of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands by his Majesty, has been drawn up under an erroneous impression, as well of the understanding under which the declaration and counter-declaration relative to the restoration of Port Egmont and its dependencies were signed and exchanged between the two courts, as of the motives which led to the temporary relinquishment of those islands by the British Government; and the undersigned cannot entertain a doubt but that, when the true circumstances of the case shall have been communicated to the knowledge of the government of the united provinces of the Rio de la Plata, that government will no longer call in question the right of sovereignty which has been exercised by his Majesty, as undoubtedly belonging to the Crown of Great Britain.
The undersigned requests, &c.
(Signed) PALMERSTON.
Foreign Office, January 8th, 1834

http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F10.2a&keywords=palmerston+islands+falkland&pageseq=163

The British attitude in 1771 is quite clear !

The British attitude in 1834 is quite clear !

Interpret as you will, the supposed reservation has no effect!!

@231Think,
l did some checking as l could have been wrong.
But in fact both you & your new friend are wrong.
1) Jon says that Harold Hardrada was the king that was killed while trying to save us Anglo-Saxons from the“frogs”. WRONG.
Harold Hardrada was the Viking leader defeated and killed by King Harold at Samford Bridge. l knew that one already, just forgot to mention it in my first post.
2) lf you look up wikipeadia(l know, not the most reliable of sources, but l have checked other sites)you will see that King Harold Godwinson's father is descended from the Royal House of Wessex. Anglo-Saxons going back to King Cerdic in the 6th century.
3) True Harolds mother was Gyntha Thorkelesdóttir whose's father is said to be Thorgil Sprakling from Sweden. However there are doubts about this. Maybe related to you Think! But not from lceland as you said.
Anyway as interesting as this all is, it has nothing to do with the fact that WE own the Falklands and YOU do not & are in fact a lot of johnny-come-latelys with no hope.

CFK , at an Argentinean Military dinner, 'dismissed as “ridiculous” statements from the United Kingdom threatening to use force if needed . . ' to defend the Protectorate of TFI.

CFK: “we want to dismiss the ridiculous statements of a colonial power that is occupying Argentine territory“ . . . we are a ”country on the brink of an attack”.

It is not ridiculous to state unequivocally that a country will defend its lands and assets.

Nowhere has it been said - or even implied - that Argentina is at (imminent) risk of attack by the UK.
This is as bad as Tony Blair's statement that the UK was at 45minutes risk of WMD-attack by Iraq - a criminal pervertion of the truth, if ever I heard one!

Just treat CFK's statements as election-rhetoric; seriously, it is nothing more serious than this.

Yet again…………. GeoffWard, airing his “faux indignation” on a completely wrong interpretation of a deficient English translation from a South-American President speech...............

I attach the complete video of the Cristina Kirchner’s speech at that dinner:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E_9QyYyfQYs

A literal translation of what she said between 1’:27’’ and 1’:45’’
“…….We want to “deactivate”, because they are ridiculous, I would say, some statements one hears from a certain colonial power that still occupies Argentinean territory, about that we are a Country that can have attack ideas…….. “

Why don’t you, before commenting on anything South American, learn the language or at least make sure that the translations you use to “inform” yourself are correct?

You are hastily developing from being an irritating Besserwisser to a pathetic Turnip…………..

“ ... a certain colonial power that still occupies Argentinean territory,...”

Who is that then ?

:-)

@236Think,
Well Think, don't ignore me & start gunning for Geoff because you know you are wrong. Either admit you were talking out of your hat or bring up some valid arguements that can be checked.
snigger
snigger, smirk.♥

Valid arguments? Think?? Silly girl ;-)

Think admit he was wrong? LOL.

http://www.falklands.info/history/history2.html

http://www.falklands.inf

http://www.falklands.inf

http://www.falklands.inf
it seems all have an opinion of the history of the Falkland’s,
I would not listen to any Icelandic lollypop, no nowt do they.
As for drake, if he did not notice the Falkland’s in the 1570-80s
He was blind as well as the best, he fought running battles with the Spanish, and has a passage names after him, most of his papers were lost, but you can bet he landed in the Falkland’s,
[Another time, another r story.
But the past won’t get you the Falkland’s,
Nowadays the people have rights to vote who run them, Not Argentina,
There is international law today, not Argentina,
The only way this will be settled is [W] no one wants. Or the ICJ
Sooner or later they will end up there,
And the Falkland’s will still have the right to rule themselves, as they do today,
Except that Argentina won’t let them.
She refuses others, to what she demands for herself,
She demands that others obey the law, and then flouts them herself,
Go to court and settle for good, just a thought ..

“Redhoyt” and those on his bandwagon continue their arguments, many of which are ad hominem, including a vilification of me, and trying to belittle me with with several names which are not my own. Yet they all hide behind 'real' pseudonyms, like any other timid cowards would do! I do not object to people putting forth entirely objective arguments under a pseudonym, but I cannot see how anonymous commentators are entitled to attack on personal grounds people who write openly and honestly using their own name. (You can see me here on my main blogsite: http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is/blog/jonvalurjensson/about/ ).

Who is that “Redhoyt”? Possibly he does not have to sleep, or we may be dealing with a little team or cell work in the British administration in Westminster, rather than an interested individual.

- - - - - -
A continuation of my letter to Mrs Margaret Thatcher, 4 May 1982 (see above, No. 221, for the beginning of that letter):

As to the right of Britain to those islands, I think it is right to remind you of the startling evidence which appeared (alas, rather lately after all the one-sided reports we've been receiving) both on BBC2 Newsnight 29th April, and in The Observer last Sunday, to the effect that the historical claims of Argentina seem to be backed up with a lot of valid arguments. The BBC commentator talked about this evidence as being “ambivalent” for each of the two parts involved, but as an outsider I think we have to agree that the British occupation of the islands in 1833 was not made in an exercise of their rights but was a mere show of force majeure. The Argentinians are the lawful and natural heirs to the Spanish and French claims to the islands (the French, who settled a year before the first British settlers, sold their rights over to the Spanish, and the Spanish considered themselves as the right owners of the islands inter alia by reason of the fact that they were off the shores of their territory (i.e. Argentina)).

[To be contd.]

We have no interest in your letters to Mrs Thatcher,
They got you know where then
And will get you the same today,
The past is by far irrelevant today.
The only facts that count today are the same in the Falkland’s as they are in Iceland or the isle of bloody white,
The people decide in totally FREE elections,
They decide who they wish to be ruled by,
It’s called FREEDOM in the 21st century,
The Falkland’s people have voted twice now to remain British,
and that is the end of it, but Argentina refuses this,
But if the Falkland’s voted to be ruled by Argentina, and the British objected, you and them would condemn it, ..
Argentina has not legal or moral rights over the Falkland’s, the people have the free right to decide, and if your Cambridge education cannot accept that, then you should have gone to spec-savers and bought new glasses,
that’s my opinion, and freedom of speech .

(234) Cher Isolde

How could I ignore you?…. You are my favorite British Squatterette….

Even if you repeatedly have threaten to spank me or even shoot me with your old 7,62 mm captured Argentinean FAL……………………

If it makes you happy:
1) Yes; in his post 186, Mr. Jensson mistakenly switched Viking King Harold Godwinson, slain at Hastings in 1066 with another slain Viking King: Harold the Harderada………..

2) Yes, in my post 231, I answer to your post 229. Sorry for answering to what you wrote instead of answering to what you “forgot to mention” or “wanted to say”
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/11/business/media/campaign-says-got-pms-get-milk.html?pagewanted=all

3) Lastly; Gytha Thorkelsdóttir’s birthplace is an open question………..but:
A ”dóttir” ending on a woman’s surname at the time usually implied a Norse or Icelandic origin….
A ”datter” ending implied a Danish origin.
A”dotter” ending implied a Swedish origin.

Anyhow, in the XI century, Greenland, Iceland, Britain, Scandinavia and the whole Baltic where Viking. Little does matter where she was born… She was a Viking.

Ps:
(242) Jon Valur Jensson
You are quickly understanding the dynamics of this site......
Don't let the “Turnips” get you!

If you listen to you argie adversary they would melt you and stick you in there freezer, claiming you as their own.
And he is in the wrong century.
[furor normannorum]
Those infamous raiders [Vikings]
Came from 3 nations, the swedes – Danes and Norwegians,
They were all termed Vikings men of the north.

Norway being anything other than a scattered land of petty chiefs, from whom small colonies had already left to settle in Orkney and Shetland’s it was Norsemen who first swept down on the British Isles at the end of the [eighth century]
Norsemen settled in Iceland Greenland, and one expedition to north America,

The first recorded rain on Irish Sea coast recorded in 795.
Bla blab la,
In Britain the resistance was headed by the Saxon kingdom of Wessex, as early as 700, Wessex had extended its influence as far as st George channel.
And so it goes on.
[The four nations by frank welsh]
..

Thanks, Think. – Actually it was Isolde who was confused when I wrote here about King Harold of Norway; I always knew there were two Harolds and two main battles in 1066, as every educated Icelander as well as any Englishman should know, and in fact I am a genealogist and have traced those families back and forth. several times.

A continuation of my letter to Mrs Margaret Thatcher, 4 May 1982 (see above, No. 221 and 242, and eveen if this was originally mot meant for publication, I will continue doing it here, for Argentina in this dispute, not for that dubious “Redhoyt”):

Moreover, the islands belong, geographically, clearly to Argentina, as they are on the continental shelf, and a 200 meters' deep is nowhere reached between the mainland and the archipelago.

The islanders pose a problem, but this has been overexaggerated by yourself and your followers. If you say their wishes should be “paramount” in all future decisions, doesn't it mean that they are a sovereign nation? But sovereignty doesn't by any means lie with them on the British view but in Westminster. Furthermore, they are not even a “nation”. Their freedom should of course be upheld, yet not at the cost of defending their presumed perennial rights to these islands. If they cannot stay there under Argentinian rule, they could easily exercise all their desired freedom in your own British Isles, couldn't they? A change of your immigration laws to that effect will not be that much of a sacrilege, will it? There is certainly no reason at all to think that the Argentinians are unwilling to release those islanders, and that their freedom has to be protected, or rather won back, on that account.

[End piece of that letter in my forthcoming next entry.]

Please continue...........

Hello, the paranoid Jonah is back ... had a good sleep? Still going on about geography? Still not checked out the Islas De Palmas case? Still printing your old letters ... how strange!

Your grasp of reality, history and international law appear fragile. As is your mental state - tell me, is it paranoia if they really are watching you?

Do I sleep? Of course. I gave you my location which should explain all. But then your powers of deduction are already questionable. The size of your ego is not.

Your old letters are irrelevant ... unless you are desperate to make new friends.

Those who grasp at any straws, like Think.

The islanders have a right to self determination which they are exercising. Nothing Argentina can do! Nothing a theologian researcher can do .... old letters or no old letters.

ps you can call me Red, actually you can call me whatever you like. I can see you are going to be a lot of fun :-)

The end piece of my letter in 1982 to Mrs Thatcher is here below – obviously referred to here as it gives some of the main reason for my standpoint in 1982 and even now.

The time I dedicated on this subject, such as reading that book by the German doctor in law, etc., and my letter-writing to the Prime Minister and two other MPs, were obviously not done to boost my ego, or why should I then have kept silent about it for 29 years? Nor was it done to secure my place at Cambridge, but simply and honestly done on the grounds of my sense of justice, and opposition to shallow jingoism used for Conservative Party purpose.

So, the end of that letter:

Finally, as a Christian I wish you are not unveiling an horrendous racialism by treating Argentinian casualties as nothing while you do everything to “protect” your forces from 2nd World War warships which are even operating outside the 200 miles exclusion zone. If enough is not enough now, when you have killed some 500 to 800 men on this one ship, then the British will never be allowed to be at ease on those islands, for you would be making impossible any peace settlements involving even a little compromise on the Argentinians' behalf. In fact, I think the British should only be allowed to withhold South Georgia, as this island is far from the Argentine continental shelf. This would be quite sufficient to ensure British rights and access to the Antarctic.

My final note is that I have the feeling that the Falkland Islanders would rather like to become real British citizens, and settle in this country, than to sacrifice even 18 lives in the military confrontation which is foreseeable if your forces invade East Falkland. And however little you may care about the Argies' lives, would you be able to guarantee less than one per cent deaths among the Falklanders? Please give it a thought.

With best wishes,
yours sincerely,
J.V. Jensson (sign.),
postgraduate research student in theology,
St John's College, Cambridge.

@216
“No state can take over the lawful territory of another and claim sovereignty over it on the basis of its immigrants' right of self-determination many years later”
Great point, at the same time they kicked the Chagossians out of their homeland and the Brits couldn't care less about their rights.


221 Jon Valur Jensson
“I tell you that the attack on the Belgrano was entirely unjustifiable, and that it will spell the end of sympathy for the British in this dispute. This is a clear instance of an unjustifiable measure of war, and that means, notably, that those responsible are guilty of murder in the sight of God and men”

“Margaret Thatcher owned by a Housewife”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOy23MLY1I

The smell of hypocracy pervades the air... When Argentina attacks and sinks a British warship during the Falklands war that is OK, but when the British attack and sink and Argentina warship that is “entirely unjustifiable”.

Mr Jensson. I suspect your tutors at John's would cringe with embarrassment if they read some of the tosh you have written here... and in the past.

249 Jon Valur Jensson

I can't help noticing that things have moved on somewhat since you wrote your letters.
Falkland Islanders are full British citizens, but we haven't all left to settle in the UK.
The Falkland Islands are internally self- governing and economically self- sufficient in everything except defence.
The only 'horrendous racialism' is exhibited by people like you who would seek to deprive us of basic human rights on the basis of where our ancestors came from. Nice.

A great video, Marcos Alejandro, thanks!
( www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOy23MLY1I )

Monty, the British invaded first, and took unlawfully what was not theirs.
The situation, including the Falklanders being there, is barring Argentina from its lawful entitlement to the archipelago, and for using its fish banks. Instead, multinationals, such as Spanish trawlers, are using them––not you, you haven't got any potential to do so! Why don't you take your sheep over to New Zealand?

You're welcome.

No Jon, the British did not invade first. Perhaps you should critically review the facts before posing an argument. I would have thought your supervisors at Cambridge would have shown you how to do this.

The British claimed and settled the Falkland Islands in 1765, long before Argentina existed. That claim was never given up. The garrison sent from Buenos Aires in October 1832, and the simultaneous appointment Mestivier as “Commandant” were both protested by the British minister at Buenos Aires - Henry Fox. When the BsAs garrison did not leave as requested, a British warship was sent to remove it. The garrison then left without a shot being fired.

Argentina has never established lawful title to the Falkland Islands and I think you'll find it is the Falkland Islanders right to exploit the waters around their islands - just as it is your right to exploit those around Iceland. All revenues from fishing around the Falkland Islands accrue to the Falkland Islanders - not the British government. If the Falkland Islands Government chooses to issue licenses to Spanish trawlers it is perfectly within its rights to do so.

Why New Zealand? Why not Patagonia? It's only 150 odd miles from the Falklands and according to you that should be sufficient for the Falkland Islanders to make a claim...

242- 236 notice how these idiots ignore the right to opinion.
yes ignore if you want,
but like argentina Jon Valur Jensson your just another stupid anti british idiot.
and think with you.
you want all to listen to bollocxs from two thickos,
ho how you just always listen to others p[oint of view, but insist we are all wrong and you right,
go back to you corrupt icelatic shit hole,
this is a british-falklands-argies problem.
so get lost ..

He's an Argentine troll. Definitely.
Why would anyone from Iceland have the slightest interest in spreading lies about Falkland Islanders? It doesn't make any sense. Even a cursory glance at the Falkland fishing fleet shows the high level of involvement by FI companies. He's doing it to wind us up, and I'm sorry to admit that it does, even though it's pathetic name- calling and nothing more.
Don't feed the trolls, it only encourages them.

Even your own government thinks you are wrong.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/iceland-icesave-debt-repayment-no-vote
I suppose we are to blame for your corrupt banks.
We paid for our bloody banks
Most of Europe tax payers are paying there bit,
So why should you Icelandic thieves get away with paying your corrupt bank fees,
You desperately want to get in to Europe so you get loan and hand-outs,
But the British and the Netherlands will oppose you, until you go to court,
And the courts will sort this out, and you will have to pay something back.
Like Argentina you are just ante British, self- righteous, and greedy
You blame everything on the brits.
Your love of argentine and backing them up. Is nothing more that anti british and ignorant.
Your just two faced,
As a matter of fact, as you are closer to Scotland than Europe, we demand Scotland rules over Iceland, and you submit yourselves to us,
[is this ok]
Or like the corrupt argies you demand one thing, then deny others of the same right,
Just a self- righteous anti British loony
self-righteous
If you describe someone as self-righteous, you disapprove of them because they are convinced that they are right in their beliefs, attitudes, and behaviour and that other people are wrong. adj
[ARGENTINA and YOU to a T ]

[monty 69
you are right.
I will not reply or answer any crappy comments from him or think, both are definitly childish pransters.
sorry if i offended any normal people.
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmm

His blog has entries that go back to 2008. How plausible is it that an Argentinian would, in 2008, commence a blog about Iceland's affairs just so he can use it on an internet discussion about the FI in 2011??

@ Red, You obviously have no concept of international law.
The French first occupied the islands.
1 year before simply taking possession of Byron
2 years before the arrival of McBride.
End of story.
Palmerston is a liar, substantiate its rights in the priority of discovery and occupation. both lies.
Learn from what was said by Mr. Jon.

How does the French settlement on the Falklands help Argentia's claim Malvinense? Go on, show us the vast extent of your ignorance of international law...

@261 J.A. Roberts, France first occupied the islands, so UK. remained outside. No rights.
They were incorporated by the kingdom of France.
They were does not incorporated by the English Parliament.
Sovereignty was transferred from France to Spain
This transfer was not protested by U.K.
Very, very simple.
Perhaps Mr. Jon o Marcos Alejandro can explain in better English.

Still no explanation about how France's occupation helps Argentia's claim. Have another try Malvinense.

There are almost no people living there (3,140 in July 2008, est.), hardly enough number of men to man more than a single trawler, and this is no nation at all, and not a member of the United Nations. It is utterly selfish to pretend to rule a 200 miles' fishery zone with the 41,7 million Argentines living there on the mainland. It is an outrage if they are claiming to have a centre line between the exclusive economic zone of Argentina and the Malvinas.

That the continental shelf proves my geographical case, can be seen here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=Falkland+Islands&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

And for a comparison, to show that Iceland is not at all a part of the Greenland continental or, rather, country shelf, you can watch this map:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=Falkland+Islands&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

So, the silly argument that someone put forth that Iceland should be a dependancy of Greenland, is altogether wrong. Iceland is about the newest land in the world, coming up through volcanic eruptions. The people of Iceland are also 5.5 times more numerous than the Greenlanders, and our State and Parliament (Althing) was established in AD 930, while Greenland was still undiscovered except by the Eskimos. Iceland's population is about a 101-fold that of the Islas Malvinas. No one contests the sovereignty of Iceland (although the European Union is planning to overthrow it, with the help of their 5th brigade in my country – mostly social-democratic wets, with the help of some of the radical socialists – who applied to be annexed to that would-be utopian federal superstate). The Malvinas are lacking in so many things to be able to function as a sovereign state, and the British dominion has been contested for over one and a half century.

Notice, in the CIA Fact Book, both names of the archipelago are given, see here:
http://maps.google.com/maps?client=safari&rls=en&q=Falkland+Islands&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

Still waiting for your 'simple' solution, Mal.
So far, all I'm hearing is some more largely irrelevant blither about what happened to three men and a dog 200 years ago.
If you think I'm giving up my home on the strength of that you'd better think again.

@263 J.A. Roberts ,
France first occupied the islands, so UK. remained outside. No rights.
They were incorporated by the kingdom of France.
They were does not incorporated by the English Parliament.
Sovereignty was transferred from France to Spain
This transfer was not protested by U.K.
Territories Spain -Independence- = Argentina
Very, very simple.
Understand now?

Spain did not grant independence Malvinense, so Argentina gained nothing from Spain. Spain did not even recognise Argentina until 1859. Try again.

Jon, how big does a population have to be for it to be considered a “people”?

The Canary Islands are on Morocco's continental shelf. How can they belong to Spain? Surely England should belong to France? Anyway, at least - according to your logic South Georgia and South Sandwich islands can't possibly belong to Argentina. Perhaps you could explain on what basis Argentina claims those islands.

Oh, and in case you hadn't noticed the Vatican functions quite happily as a sovereign state with a population of only 1000.

221 Jon Valur Jensson-----I am a foreigner and I think that I speak not only for myself but for most other Europeans when I tell you that the attack on the Belgrano was entirely unjustifiable, ------- dear God in heaven another person who does not understand the rules of engagement in a conflict. Let me put it to you simply so that a someone who comes from er Iceland can grasp, are you listening carefully Mr Jon, good, warship sailing towards the British task force, a few hundred miles away another warship sailing towards the British task force in a pincer movement that could spell disaster to the British task force they are the good guys by the way Mr Jon. warship 1 turns and goes out of the exclusion zone but at any time could turn around and come back, warship 1 is being shadowed by a sub, sub asks for permission to fire on warship 1 boom boom boom warship 1 sinks and low and behold warship 2 slinks back home never to be seen again, job done, and good guys are on their way to kicking of the bad guys on the islands, simply put so that even a Cambridge graduate can understand it all, Oh and by the way can I have some of my money back that you lot pinched in the banking crisis please.

Think #236,
you have an infinitely better knowledge of Spanish than me,
and I thank you for the literal translation of the words of CFK's speech

“…….We want to “deactivate”, because they are ridiculous, I would say, some statements one hears from a certain colonial power that still occupies Argentinean territory, about that we are a Country that can have attack ideas…….. “

. . . . what I really need is an accurate colloquial translation of your literal translation, for it remains CFK gobbledegook.

If there is anything in your forthcoming colloquial translation that materially changes my words posted at #235, I will be pleased to reassess;
but in the meantime my understanding is based on better language than that with which you have provided me, and my comments stand.

Your inappropriate misuse of the term “faux indignation” does not leave me with much expectation of your improvement.

(269) GeoffWard
I am not your Spanish teacher..
If you want to continue making a fool of yourself comenting about things that haven't been said................
Well ............................Be my guest.

Yes Monty, you're right. He's a troll. l began to suspect that but you've made up my mind for me.
One consolation is that he's taken Think in too. That is if he isn't actually Think.
l still maintain that his history is wrong. He's twisted parts of it to suit himself & his new found faith of“Poor little hard done by Argentina”.
l also will not answer him again.
However l will have oneparting shot.
Hey, Jon boy, you say that the Falklands belong to Argentina because, correctly, we ejected their trespassing garrison in 1833.
What about the lrish monks that your ancestors found & murdered in lceland when they first arrived in 930ad(your date)?
Because thats over a thousand years ago do you think that doesn't matter?
l demand you implanted Scandinavians go back to Scandinavia & return lceland to its rightful legitimate owners, lreland.
What a self-righteous pompous poltroon!

Yes, he's Think. Think just figured out creating an Icelandic persona and a blog would be useful back in 2008 so he could in the next years debate FIers on internet forums.

What is it with you guys? I thought you said it was Argentinians who smeared people because they lacked arguments.

@Think

Since you have such impressive powers to predict the future, can you tell me if I'll be married to a wealthy MILF in three years if I immediately start going to the gym?

@267 J.A. Roberts, and??? Argentina had its first government in 1810,
Argentines were expelled in 1833
United States was an independent country on July 4, 1776 without recognizing English. sorry, try again.

To Monty and Isolde

You wish Mr. Jon Valur Jensson was an Argentinean troll.
But he isn't
He is 100% legit...................
Even one of my Icelandic acquaintances (Hilmir Ó) from Reykjavik vouches for him…..

Chuckle chuckle ™

Think, the reason I want him to be a troll is because of the disgrace he brings on the dear old place (he did say he went to Cambridge didn't he? at least five times). I met plenty of turnips there and have stayed in touch with some of them, but they've all had something new to say since 1979.

''Why don't you take your sheep over to New Zealand?'' Yep, quality intellectual debate there.
Chuckle on, old chap. We've got the Mayor of Pocklington, you've got Mr Iceland. I think we're ahead so far.

@273 Hahaha.
British still can not believe the lack of support they have around the world.
Don't worry Brits, if you don't believe Jon Valur Jensson you can always ask Scotland Yard chief “Sir” Paul Stephenson to investigate!
Wait a minute....too late he just quit over the hacking scandal :-(

(273) Forgetit86
Just a word of caution:
Keep away from wealthy MILF's.....
Especially blond ones...
Eventually, a nice jewish princess will find you ;-)

(276) Monty96
Yeahhhhh....
That Pocklington mayor is a hard act to beat!

Britishbulldog, it was a fact that the Gen. Belggrano was sailing AWAY from the British task force and was not within the 200 miles zone. The attack was cowardly, and you should listen carefully to the newscastwoman here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWOy23MLY1I

You wrote: “Oh and by the way can I have some of my money back that you lot pinched in the banking crisis please,” but in fact I was no part to that bank or its activities whatsoever; it was, moreover, not a state bank, nor ensured by the state. Secondly, if you were one of those gambling in high interest Icesave accounts, you have already been refunded. We Icelanders have nothing to do with it, but it's no surprise to see the defenders of British expansionism defending legal fiction and financial colonialism as well.

Isolde, you write: ”What about the lrish monks that your ancestors found & murdered in lceland when they first arrived in 930ad(your date)?” – You are obviously bad in Nordic history. The monks were not killed, and the Scandinavians first arrived in the 860's, the first settler in 874AD (yes, in Reykjavik).

And you, the virtually anonymous one, use it as one of your main “arguments” that I am a “troll”, if not Argentine troll, and no Icelander at all! You can see my Icelandic websites here: http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is
and here: http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is
and here: http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is
and I have written a whole lot here as a chairman of National Honour:
http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is
and as the main contributor here: http://jonvalurjensson.blog.is
Now you can try exercising your Icelandic, Miss.

I actually agree with Think!

Jonah is 100% authentic saddo. Keeping unpublished and unread letters from 30 years ago, relying on the discredited case of geography which even the Argentine government knows has no validity in international law, tendency not to listen to other arguments, using a 30 year old picture of himself in a journal that he's keen to promote (probably also unread) ... oh no, he's authentic all right. Another lunatic escaped from the asylum.

I can see why others would make a connection with Think though. Jonah's thinks I'm a government department, Think believes Charles Darwin was a CIA 'plant', they both have Scandanavian origins, and they both rely on 'geography' as an argument. It may be love!

I even agree that you've got to handle MILF's with care .... :-)

Agreeing with Think, what a strange start to the day. Me and the lads have had a good sleep, thankyou Jonah!

Morning all. Anything changed? No, of course not. The Falkland islands are still British and Iceland still owes us money :-)

Marvin33 - so Palmerston is a liar! Well done, your idiocy is apparently unlimited. You don't suppose Palmerston was a CIA plant do you ?

Sorry, are you talking to me?
Anonymous? Nooooo! Completely obvious to any Falkland Islander.
I'm not the real Adam Cockwell though, despite previously stating otherwise.

Belgrano! That takes back. I remember cheering very loudly and for a long time. Well, if you want to invade another's land what do you expect ?

You'll be telling me life's not fair again! LOL

we have a new allie and you get so nervoussssssss
and Brasil is out of copa américa 4 goals have failed

282 Rotted, I doubt that your celebration lasted a long time, a few hours instead.

281 Monty69
Completely obvious to any drunk islander that you are not Adam Cockwell thought.

Wrong again MoreCrap ..... I've celebrated the success of British arms for 29 years now. And the party just goes on and on ...........

You sound nervous not in a happy mood Rott.

How on earth can I sound 'nervous'. For your information I have my feet up, with a cuppa and reading the morning papers ..... nothing to be nervous about MoreCrap!

@ 280 Red, so Palmerston is a liar! Well done, your idiocy is apparently unlimited. You don't suppose Palmerston was a CIA plant do you ?
Nop, but your lies are a fact.

Of course your feets are up, after you got your butt kicked all day long in MercoPress, must be very difficult to sit down.
Get used to it .

@ 289 hahahahahahahahahaha :-))))) !!!!!!!!!!!!

Marvin33, I've quoted the letter from Viscount Palmerston to M.Moreno in 1834. How can that be a lie? Oh, it doesn't suit you so therefore its a lie! Of course, the Argentine method of argument. Ignore the facts, just go with what suits!!

Butt kicked? You live in a very different world MoreCrap. Are the islands still British? Yes! Keep taking the tablets :-)

Nothing Argentina can do .... she really should be getting used to that by now lol

#279 Mr Jon Valur Jensson,

I bealive you will find interesting this proof about the illegal sunk of Gral Belgrano.

Bless

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GtGtaTvO89Q&feature=channel_video_title

:-)))))
Sorry I meant feet..or paws.

# 289 Marcos

:D

@291 Red, If, Palmerston is a liar, the first settlers were the French.
herefore the British were never a player, only intruders.

''If, Palmerston is a liar, ?????
Good grief! He's been dead over a hundred years!
Do you people really have nothing more relevant to say than that?

If you want to make me 'nervous' you'll have to do better than that.

Anyway, off to bed now as I have a busy day pirating and squatting tomorrow. Toodle-pip.

@ 221 “And I was in my 33rd year when I wrote those letters. Do you seriously think Cantabrigians are intellectually immature at that age?!”

I think that you, Jon-boy, are the exception that makes the rule...

@ 242 'Yet they all hide behind 'real' pseudonyms, like any other timid cowards would do! I do not object to people putting forth entirely objective arguments under a pseudonym,“ only fools identify themselves on here.... there are some nasty little RG stalkers hereabout.....

@264 ”It is utterly selfish to pretend to rule a 200 miles' fishery zone with the 41,7 million Argentines living there on the mainland. It is an outrage if they are claiming to have a centre line between the exclusive economic zone of Argentina and the Malvinas.“.... so how do you justify depriving +50 million British of their cod and chips?

”So, the silly argument that someone put forth that Iceland should be a dependancy of Greenland, is altogether wrong. Iceland is about the newest land in the world, coming up through volcanic eruptions. The people of Iceland are also 5.5 times more numerous than the Greenlanders, and our State and Parliament (Althing) was established in AD 930, while Greenland was still undiscovered except by the Eskimos. Iceland's population is about a 101-fold that of the Islas Malvinas. No one contests the sovereignty of Iceland (although the European Union is planning to overthrow it, with the help of their 5th brigade in my country – mostly social-democratic wets, with the help of some of the radical socialists – who applied to be annexed to that would-be utopian federal superstate). ”

Indeed.... very silly in fact its just as silly as suggesting the Falklands are RG....

' I speak not only for myself but for most other Europeans when I tell you that the attack on the Belgrano was entirely unjustifiable, '

You opinionated prat....

Butt kicked? You live in a very different world MoreCrap. Are the islands still British? Yes! Keep taking the tablets :-)

Nothing Argentina can do .... she really should be getting used to that by now lol
Argentina still belong to Argentina..this is more important to me...The other,you are spending your money(which you do not have) in there....
Good nigth,lady bug,make some deep hole,so you can sneak the next bombing...
We Argentines are safe,we do not bug anyone

Mean while..... Jon-Boy...' I tell you that the attack on the Belgrano was entirely unjustifiable, '
the British probably saved lives by sinking Belrano and driving the rest of the fleet back to port... if they had stayed at sea the odds are the whole fllet would have been sunk....

@298.. 'We Argentines are safe,we do not bug anyone' ... correct me if I am wrong but wasn't that what Macri was accused of a year or so back?

Your Comment Jon JJ- Belgrano! Facts as confirmed on British News TV in 1983- she was steaming a triangular holding pattern awaiting further orders at the time- part of the planned pincer attack on the British Fleet - delayed because of lack of wind for the other part on the pincer- their aircraft carrier to launch its aircraft.Plan was for the Belgrano and her accompanying (exocet armed?) destroyers to attack in the immediate aftermath of the air attack. British knew something was about to happen and had lost contact with the carrier so took out the other part of the attack. Admiral in charge of Arg Southern Command confirmed she was a fair target and he would have done the same thing.
Negotiations with Arg on our future! How can you when they have already stated publicy that there can only be ONE result- innediate and full sovereing takeover and control by Argentina and we who have lived here for up to 10 generations and built up this little country from nothing can have NO say in deciding our own future - that is their position - they are not a Democracy like Iceland and West Europe! Incidentally I have no real sympathy for those in UK who lost money in your banks - pretty obvious it would happen with such high interest rates on offer ! Get greedy and invest silly - repent at leisure.

Marvin01 - “ ... Argentina still belong to Argentina ...”.

Well spotted, shows what an expensive education can achieve!

“ .. we do not bug anyone ...”

Really! What do the neighbours think? Brazil (trade problems), Paraguay (Electricity problems), Chile (history of problems), Uruguay (bullied). You lot need to wake up and smell the roses :-)

Interesting discussion – still a lively fight!

However, Redhoyt is trying to sound serious, describing my views and presentation: “... relying on the discredited case of geography which even the Argentine government knows has no validity in international law.” – This is very wrong; exactly such issues of the natural shelf around countries is still fully relevant in international disputes, such as about the Rockall area somewhere NW off Ireland, claimed by the Irish, British, Faroese and Icelandic authorities all alike, and precisely with reference to the seabed or to which shelf it most naturally belongs. A divided control is not an unlikely outcome of that.

As you can see, I have mostly been bypassing, as below the readers' respect, all those ill-controlled statements of “Redhoyt” about my supposed derangement. I suggest the reason for resorting to such 'arguments' is his own uneasy awareness of the defective force of his other arguments. This 3rd class rhetoric is also used so as to scare off both the attacked individual and bring the nasty realization clear to other possible opponents that they'd better say as little as possible, otherwise they will be vilified with equal rudeness.

But I am not going to keep quiet; I've suffered much more adversity than this, and am in for the fight for justice and truth as ever before.

Jon: Do not worry,about the pro brits.They still have an inmaturity problem.Is called post-imperial traumatic symbol.I just have fun,and see them burning theirs pounds...
Very interesting,your material,Jon.I hope some day to visit that interesting Icelandic island,and meet you.
Regards..

Ah, Jonah the poaranoid self publicist, who has 'suffered'. What a hero :-)))

Still not found out that geography is irrelevant in matters of sovereignty?

Still trying to find Rockall .... claiming it but not actually knowing where it is ”...somewhere NW off Ireland' ... lol

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_location_rockall.jpg

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_location_rockall.jpg

Actually Jonah, I'm very comfortable with my understanding of the history of the Falkland Islands, and with my certainty that the historical case favours the British argument.

Having said that I am forced to acknowledge that the history of the dispute between Spain and the UK is largely irrelevant to the future of the islands. Much as I enjoy the melee!

The game changer came in the form of the multilateral treaty known as the Charter of the United Nations. Signed by all UN members and binding in international law.

The Falkland Islands have been listed at the UN as a non-self governing territory. Non-self governing territories fall under Chapter 11 of that multi-lateral Treaty and specifically under Articles 73 and 74.

Article 73 places a responsibility and a duty on the UK in respect of its non-self governing territories, including the Falkland Islands, Article 74 places an obligation on every other member State in respect of all non-self governing territories. The UK is meeting its obligations. Argentina is not.

The UN Charter also protects the right of self-determination for ALL non-self governing territories.

That's a fact. That was the game changer. Geography and history are irrelevant. International law in the form of this multi-lateral Treaty is now the overriding consideration.

The islander's are protected in international law, backed up by a bit of British muscle !

Really,lady bug......poor guy..just a simple unemployed hooligan...
Why do not go and help the Malvinense edward to win the battle at hte UN..So in that way he does not have to implore ,considering your vast Malvinas expertise....
Lady bug: You are full of bolony...

I thank you very much, Malvinero1. 'Post-imperial traumatic syndrome' is quite a telling appellation, or a diagnosis of their disease!

I've found out that my letters on the Malvinas in 1982 were at least six. Here is one of them:
-----------
To the letters editor of the Sunday Times
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 June, 1982.

Dear Madam/Miss,
Would you please publish the following letter next Sunday, bearing in mind that I have already sent you two letters (unpublished) on the same issue; but this one is directly referring to your notice in the letters columns yesterday. – My address is 12 Richmond Terrace, Cambridge CB5 8AJ, telephone 0223 522785.

[And the letter itself:]

We have seen (Letters, 27 June) that John Davis' 'visual apprehension' of the Falklands in 1592 was not sufficient per se to establish a right of sovereignty for the British. But then neither did the Dutchman van der Weerdt acquire such rights in 1598. According to a legal study of the Falklands sovereignty issue, in those times “the only decisive principle to legitimate acquisition of territories in the New World was that of real, i.e. effective possession, excluding mere 'discovery' as a title to acquisition of sovereignty” (Dr H. Weber, “Falkland-Islands” oder “Malvinas”? Hamburg University Institute of International Affairs, 1977, p. 192). This title was safely acquired by the French in 1764 but obtained in turn by Spain in 1766 on a payment of indemnity. The Spanish sovereign rights, perpetuated by their settlements, were recognized by Great Britain in 1771. So do not violate justice in this case, now that you have successfully upheld an international principle which Britain, however, was first to break with the aggression that paid so well in 1833.

The view held by the Foreign Office that van der Weerdt had the sovereign rights is mere wishful thinking and cannot obscure the fact that Argentina is the legal heir of French and Spanish rights. [To be contd.]

Another letter!

Who on earth keeps copies of 30 year old letters that went unpublished and unanswered (and probably unread). Only someone with an inflated sense of their own value I suggest.

Well you'll find Argentine friends here right enough. Their knowledge of history and international law is about a disjointed as yours.

The fact of the matter however is that the islands have been British since 1765, reinforced by the diplomatic victory of 1771 and the expulsion of trespassers in 1833 (and again in 1982).

246 years after sovereignty was established, 240 years after Spain was put down, 178 years after Argentina was put in its place and 29 years after the reminder they are still British.

That fact is not likely to change.

The end clause of that same letter (cf 306):

The view held by the Foreign Office that van der Weerdt had the sovereign rights is mere wishful thinking and cannot obscure the fact that Argentina is the legal heir of French and Spanish rights. The presence of British people there, consequent to the illegal invasion which expelled the Argentines in 1833, cannot alter that fundamental fact. “In the Falklands dispute the principle of self-determination is not a legal one, being used with priority” (op.cit. 193). So do not violate justice in this case, now that you have successfully upheld an international principle which Britain, however, was first to break with the aggression that paid so well in 1833. Above all, do not spend half a million pounds annually on each family in the Falklands, in order to defend their freedom and democracy. Do that rather here on British soil where they can share that money with other British citizens.

Jon V. Jensson
Cambridge.

With thanks for Ms. Ravenswood's reply letters of 8th & 12 June, and with kind regards, J.V. Jensson.
- - -
Needless to say, even this letter was not published in the Sunday Times.
Instead of making attacks on my small, insignificant personality, I suggest that my critics should become a little more introvert, and draw attention to the fact of silencing in the British press in that jingoistic annus horribilis 1982. Hasn't Mr Murdoch's whole sordid affair opened the eyes of the Brits to the fact of the unholy alliance of the press to party politics, and the corruption of journalistic standards?

307 Rotted “Who on earth keeps copies of 30 year old letters”
Look who's talking, you post all the time that useless 170 year old letter from
Viscocho Palmerston to Moreno...I rather see your useless wikipedia links :-)

MoreCrap - that 177 year old letter is hardly useless. It emanates from the government of the day, whereas Jonah just likes the sound of his own voice.

Indeed Palmerston's letter sinks half the lies coming out of Argentina. If you don't believe me ... take it to the ICJ.

The C-24 has no power to solve any sovereignty dispute, only the ICJ has the power for that.

So, unless you play, you cannot win!

@274 Malvinense 1833
You are a plank! Did Argentina control the Falkland Islands in 1810? No. Did Argentina control Patagonia in 1810? No. Just because you took your independence by force in 1810 does not mean the Falklands were yours then or in 1832.

Jon Valur Jensson

Regards the Belgrano.

The fact that a) the Belgrano was outside the 200 mile exclusion zone, and b) at the time of it's sinking was sailing away from the Falklands are irrelevant.

The purpose of the exclusion zone was for neutral and civilian vessels ONLY. It is a statement making them aware that if they sail into the exclusion zone they will be at risk.

A vessel of war such as the Belgrano is/was a legitimate target regargless of it's location or it's course. Even if it was sat in port it would still have been a legitimate target.

The Royal Navy task force was being bombed by the Argentine air force flying from the Argentine mainland, outside the exclusion zone. Had we had the ability this would have made the Argentine airfields on the Argentine mainland a legitimate target.

Argentina had an aircraft carrier. Are you seriously saying that had it been sitting 1 mile outside the exclusion zone launching airstrikes against the Royal Navy task force, the British would not have been allowed to respond because it was outside the exclusion zone? Are you seriously saying it would not have been a legitimate target?

Add to this the fact that the Captain of the Belgrano has openly stated that the sinking of his vessel was a legitimate act of war.

As to the sovereignty dispute, your letters make no mention of the 1850 Convention of Settlement which settled ALL disputes between Britain and Argentina.

l said that l wouldn't answer the troll, but l just can't help myself.........this is fun!
1) Well Think, l never said that your nephew/son/lover(?) was an Argentine troll. l said that he was just........a troll.
2) l neither know nor care when the Vikings reached lceland. But they did find lrish hermits there & they killed them all as the Vikings were not christians at that time. They also took slaves from lreland & Britain(mainly women)so your ancestors, troll, were not as pure as the driven snow as you would have us believe.Traders & merchants..........yeah, righto.
3)Who cares, troll, which direction the Belgrano was sailing.
As l have remarked previously, it was an armed enemy warship.
ln WWll the Germans sank our merchant ships travelling in both directions crossing the Atlantic. Are you saying egotistical troll, that they should have only sank them when they were coming to the UK, but left them alone when they were sailing west? What a fool you are.
btw, troll, you never answered me about the intentions of the Argentines re our ships in Gibraltar, did you? What were their intentions? Our ships were no-where near the Falkland exclusion zone.
Who cares about your mouldy old letters? They made no sense then, they make no sense now.

A right-wing Icelandic uber nationalist, now thats a new one for the books? I didn't know such a creature existed!

”There are almost no people living there (3,140 in July 2008, est.), hardly enough number of men to man more than a single trawler, and this is no nation at all“
- hahah nice one, and prey tell me what UN criteria says you must have X number of people to be regarded as a nation? It wouldn't have escaped your inflated sense of purpose that until very recently the UN has been trying to push Tokelau for independence, a mere population of 1,400....I think we can consign the 3,150 argument to the dustbin eh?

”It is utterly selfish to pretend to rule a 200 miles' fishery zone with the 41,7 million Argentines living there on the mainland”

-They are not pretending, they do rule it, in fact they pretend so much that Argentines actually respect the EEZ limit :), as for selfish? Are you stupid....of course its selfish! You don't put an EEZ in place with the intention of equally distributing the profits gained with the rest of the world do you numbnutts :) A Falklands EEZ for the benefit of the Falklands....no one else...

Ah the Belgrano.

The facts:

The Belgrano group was the Southern arm of a naval pincer move, with two groups to the North of the islands. One group was the aircraft carrier and her 2 T42 escorts and the second a group of Exocet armed destroyers and frigates.

This was intended to be supported by an air launched Exocet attack from Super Etendard based on the mainland.

May 1 was the intended day of the attack but the Super Etendard mission was aborted due to technical problems and the wind conditions in the South Atlantic meant the wind was too light for the Argentine carrier to launch an airstrike.

The Carrier group had in fact been sighted by a British submarine previously but the attack was aborted on a political directive due to the ongoing peace talks. The shadowing submarine then lost contact.

The situation facing the British task force commander:

He knew there was an attack developing and the Argentine carrier knew where he was but the position of the Carrier group was uncertain. (As it happens a Sea Harrier found it later that day).

He knew where the Southern group was and could take out that threat.

He knew from communications intercepts, that the attack had been aborted but they intended to try again the next day and that the Belgrano group had been ordered to a holding position; its course was immaterial what mattered was its position, capabilities and intentions.

So the facts are that a belligerent warship was attacked, whilst engaged on a military mission and sunk.

The claim that this was supposed to be a plot to derail peace talks is bogus. Argentina was earnestly engaged in trying to attack the British task force whilst it claimed to be considering a peace proposal.

I call bullshit on that.

I always switch off when I hear the kind of argument that goes....
”There are almost no people living there (3,140 in July 2008, est.), hardly enough number of men to man more than a single trawler, and this is no nation at all“
This isn't even third class reasoning.
Does a peoples rights increase in proportion to their number? Goodness, the Chinese must have plenty in that case.
And the fewer people there are in a territory the more justification their neighbours have for stomping all over them? Really.

The Argentine government dropped its claim that the sinking of the Belgrano was a war crime in 1994, its defence ministry conceded that it was ”a legal act of war''. After the war, Argentinean Rear- Admiral Allara admitted that the whole of the South Atlantic became an operational theatre during the conflict and that the Belgrano was a casualty of war. The Argentinians themselves had fired missiles at British ships & aircraft outside of the exclusion zone & the British fired upon and disabled the ARA Santa Fe all of which were outside the exclusion zone. The General Belgrano was ordered to attack British ships the day before she was sunk, these orders were intercepted by British intelligence. Her captain Hector Bonzo, admitted that the Belgrano's decision to sail away from the task force was only a temporary manoeuvre and that she was ready to engage British ships.

I know Monty its hilarious especially coming from a Whale Blubber eater :) Icelandic's are hardly ones to lecture on population size as a means of deciding who is more worthy to democratically decide their own future, why in terms of population density to country size Iceland barely beats the Falklands with most settlements outside of Reykjavik make Goose Green look positively Metropolitan...what a twad! I thought Icelanidcs, as a people I admired for their championing of liberal and democratic values, would naturally be supportive of the ideal that only the individual can decide his/hers own future, it appears I have been grossly misinformed....

Don't forget that Iceland has a lot in common with Argentina .... they owe a lot of people a lot of money for a start !

:-)

Jon Valur Jensson

To address some more of your comments.

You stated: “The old Empire traits and bad manners of Westminster policies are very slow to come off, and for example they have attacked my small country, Iceland, in a very harsh manner, first by sending on us many warships of HM Navy in the Cod-war dispute in the 1970's”

You fail to mention that it was Iceland that intiated hostilities in the Cod Wars by trying to detain and sometimes firing on unarmed fishing vessels.

You State:”the popular myth that the British invasion of the islands in 1833 was based on the right of first discovery (1592 & 1690) has no validity, for in those times “the only decisive principle to legitimate acquisition of territories in the New World was that of real, i.e. effective possession, excluding mere 'discovery' as a title to acquisition of sovereignty“

At no point has Argentina held effective possesion of the Falkland Islands. The Argentine settlement that Argentina uses to base it's claim was a private venture of one Louis Vernet who had applied for and received British permission. When Argentina appointed a governor to the islands this was protested via the correct diplomatic process, which Argentina chose to ignore. Britain therfore re-asserted it's sovereignty. Having a garrison on the islands for a few months hardly constitutes effective possesion you speak of.

You state:”These facts are incontestable, at least in so far as they are allowed to be heard!“

Incontestable... really. As comments go thats more than a litte arrogant. If the facts as you have put them are indeed incontestable then why has Argentina never taken their case to the ICJ?

You state:”And stop yelling about Argentine invasion – it was a rather peaceful one, whereas the British are mainly responsible for so much of the manslaughter.”

Are you being serious? A Peaceful invasion? Since when is any invasion peaceful? British rewsponsible? If Argentina hadn't invaded then no war.

Icelandic Jon- seesm you are like so many of the Arg folks on here- confonted with facts and realism you suddenly go quiet and don,t answer! Perhaps you will aslo dispute the British landing on the Falklands in 1690 and formal possession taking? Perhaps you will also come up with the justification for Arg claim over South Georgia nad South Sandwich Islands as well? even Think is stuck on that one! Perhaps you will dispute that Arg forces blasted the British marine barracks with phosphorous grenades etc in the early hours of 2nd April 1982 in their “peacefull” attack on the Islands?

Yes, “Islander1” (one more of those shy ones), I certainly question any “formal possession taking” by the British of the Falkland Islands in 1690. In those times, “the only decisive principle to legitimate acquisition of territories in the New World was that of real, i.e. effective possession, excluding mere 'discovery' as a title to acquisition of sovereignty” – the words of the legal expert Dr Hermann Weber, in his juridical study, “Falkland-Islands” oder “Malvinas”? which all of you, imperiophiles, have been keeping quiet about – understandably!

And yes, the Argentine invasion in 1982 was among the most peaceful in modern history – for example, I cannot find a single casualty here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Invasion_by_Argentina

Compare, on the other hand, Saddam's invasion into Kuwait – the Iraqis were certain to conquer the whole country in a matter of days, yet there were many casualties. The British had, by deciding to leave the islands unprotected, almost indicated that they would not defend the Falklands. A Labour government might have decided to opt for peace talks and a solution somewhere on the line of my proposal in the letter to the Sunday Times (here above, and here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Invasion_by_Argentina ): “let the Argentinians have West Falkland now, and East Falkland in 50 years' time, whereas Britain can keep South Georgia and the other Falklands dependancies indefinitely.” Or they might have tried to keep the islands longer: yield it half to the Argentine in 2033 (like you did with Hong Kong, a much more valuable gem to the old empire), half later!

But Mrs Thatcher opted for armed conflict; that “resulted in the deaths of 255 British and 649 Argentine soldiers, sailors, and airmen, and the deaths of three civilian Falkland Islanders” [three women killed in “friendly fire”] (see here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falklands_War#Invasion_by_Argentina ). A total of 904 lives, an many more wounded. And you want me to praise the Iron Lady?!

Mrs Thatcher did not “opt” for war, point of fact the British Government engaged fully in the peace process, whilst Argentine spurned every chance of peace. Perez de Cuellar is on record as expressing his amazement at just how far the British Government were prepared to compromise to avoid war, it was Argentina that refused to compromise and blew every peace deal.

How is the number of casualties relevant? It was an armed invasion? And as for your comment that “The British had, by deciding to leave the islands unprotected, almost indicated that they would not defend the Falklands.” What kind of idiotic comment is that? As far as I am aware Britain do not have an armed garrison on the Isle of Wight, does that mean Britain are inviting invasion?

Not surprised Iceland and Argentina find common purpose. They are both dishonourable nations and their collective word is worth nothing.
Mrs Thatcher was a fine Prime Minister who led this Country back to greatness only for Blair, Brown and now Cameron to waste her legacy.

It's the idea of an invasion being peaceful I don't get? An invasion is by its very definition a hostile act of agression. It is not by its very nature a peaceful act. Had Mr Jensson stated it was a relatviely bloodless invasion, now that I could understand, though I would still fail to see how this would justify the act of invasion itself or mean that Britain was responsible in any way for the casualties inflicted in the islands liberation.

If Britain gave Argentina the impression as he claims that Britain would not defend the islands the sending of a task force should have expelled this belief. It took some time for the task force to reach the islands, in which time the Argentines could have left.

Even if at this point the Argentine still though Britain would not fight to liberate the islands they certainly should have changed that belief once the British forces we landed in San Carlos. Even at this point the Argentine had ample time to back down and surrender before the land forces engaged each other. They didn't, they chose to fight leaving Britain no choice.

325 Englander “dishonourable nations”
I am sure you are talking about England, killed millions in Ireland, India and many others countries, enslave three millions Africans invades foreign land under any pretext like WMD on Iraq, one of the latest materpieces of this falling apart crude colonial power, and like Jon said ”Keep to you own island!!

I am sure you are talking about England, killed millions in Ireland, India and many others countries, enslave three millions Africans invades foreign land

For a 200 year old country Argentina dont do too bad

1869-1880, the War of the Desert was a conquest to clear the Pampas region of Native Americans. General Julio A. Roca was successful in doing this

there was a deliberate policy of genocide against the Afro Argentinian, which was openly expressed by many Euro-Argentines as Domingo F. Sarmiento and was probably implemented by using repressive policies during epidemics and wars as a tool of mass destruction.[5] The theories argue that genocide may have been used to explain the decline in the population

The Dirty War (Spanish: Guerra Sucia) was a period of state-sponsored violence in Argentina from 1976 until 1983

Once again Jon Valur Jensson gives a demonstration of his vast and wilful ignorance of the facts.

The Falkland Islanders had a right to self determination in 1982, as they do today and as they have since the UN Charter was signed and ratified by the UK and Argentina. To suggest that the UK just give away bits of the Falklands to Argentina in contravention of that right is simply incomprehensible. The Foreign Office itself tried to give away the Falklands to Argentina in the late 1970s. Thankfully the British Parliament checked the FCO. It would have been a gross injustice had this occurred.

Hong Kong was on a 99-year lease, well all of it except for a tiny bit which would never have been viable on its own. The Hong Kong situation does not compare to the Falkland Island situation in the slightest. It was never a question that Hong Kong belonged to China and that it would be returned to China when the lease was up.

The Argentine invasion the most peaceful in modern history? You can't find any sign on casualties on a Wikipedia page of your choice... Are you serious? Everybody knows that there were casualties around Government House within hours of the first Argentine landings!

“But Mrs Thatcher opted for armed conflict”

Classic how you can actually blame us for when YOU invaded. Thatcher defended her people as it was her job to do.

She was not the aggressor in this, you was.

@#328 Sticky, following on from the Conquista del Desierto you forgot to mention they were still killing off inconvenient and pesky natives as late as the 1920s

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napalp%C3%AD_massacre

Zethe, I am not an Argentine, and I have never taken part in any military aggression, whereas the British have attacked us here in Iceland by sending many of their warships to bully us not to extend our fishery zone, first from 4 miles to 12 miles in 1958, then to 50 miles in 1972, and finally to 200 miles in 1975. The people of the Third World, if and when dealing with the remains of imperialist pressure and aggression, should take comfort from this: that in all three Cod Wars we, the small nation in the north had the upper hand, and the British Navy had to return to their ports with a somewhat softer upper lip.

Likewise, in the Icesave dispute, the Icelandic nation repealed the shameful legislation of our weak and slavish social-democratic/socialist majority in Parliament who had acted under threat from two ex-colonial powers, the UK and the Netherlands. We do not owe the British a single penny, Anglophiles!

J.A Roberts, you wrote: “The Falkland Islanders had a right to self determination in 1982,” but they are not a sovereign nation, not a sovereign state. In the World Factbook of the CIA you can read this definition: ”FALKLAND ISLANDS (ISLAS MALVINAS)
(OVERSEAS TERRITORY OF THE UK; ALSO CLAIMED BY ARGENTINA)“.

An ”overseas territory of the UK” is not an independent state. In 1950, for example, the British would have felt free to sell the archipelago to the United States or to almost anyone, without asking the few inhabitants' permission. They even did somewhat similar to the reluctant people of Hong Kong, betraying them and handing them over to a dictatorship.

And LegionNi (324), do not even try to put the Malvinas on par with the Isle of Wight – that island is not claimed by any state except Britain, whereas the Islas Malvinas belong juridically to the Argentines, as you should know!

To Jon Valur Jensson...................

I can see that you are getting the ”Full Monty” from the Turnips!
And you haven’t even met the biggest of them all: Mr. Justin(his-head)Kuntz.
He is a real ”Turnip Surprise” (the surprise is that there is nothing inside other than Turnip:-)

Prepare to be properly insulted, you….you fascist, communist racist, nazi, black, jewish, muslim, Argieloving socialdemocrat viking dog ;-)

Jon, it does not matter that the Falklands are not a sovereign state. Being a non self governing territory does not limit the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination in any way whatsoever. Any more than it limits the right to self determination in any other non self governing territory.

Erm, you still don't get the fact that Hong Kong was on a 99-year lease. It was Chinese territory, not British territory (except for a tiny piece which would never have been viable on its own). There was never any question that Hong Kong would be given back to China when the lease ended. Thatcher tried to negotiated an extension to the lease but the Chinese told her to get lost. The lease came to an end and the UK handed Hong Kong back to China.

So Think, do I really scare you that much.

You falsely accuse me of posting under multiple names.
You initiated the insults not me and when you post idiocy, don't be upset to be called an idiot.
You stalk the contributors here with the moral courage to post under their own names, whilst you cower behind an anonymous pseudonym like the pathetic coward you are.
And you also pop up always trying to rubbish what I have to say, you can't defeat the argument presented so you attack the person.

Freud would have a field day with you, I think the identity of our viking warrior has been established. Like when you project your own failings onto others. Ciao.

332 Wasn't that because your Country sent out its Gunboats to harass and cut the nets of unarmed British Trawlers fishing in International Waters?
Iceland was the aggressor then just like Argentina was in 1982.
The thing about trying to change history is that you can't.

#332 Jon Valur Jensson

”And LegionNi (324), do not even try to put the Malvinas on par with the Isle of Wight – that island is not claimed by any state except Britain, whereas the Islas Malvinas belong juridically to the Argentines, as you should know!“

You completely missed the point being made didn't you. You suggested that Britain practically invited the invasion by not having adequate defenses in place. My point was that this did not excuse nor justify the Argentine invasion. My example of the Isle of Wight was to illustrate the fact that even if Britain were to leave the Isle of Wight completely defenseless this doe not mean Britain would be inviting invasion by Argentina, France, Germany or any other nation.

Your statement suggests you believe Britain effectively invited the invasion and that because of that only Britain is at fault.

You also mention the Cod wars again, mentioning acts of force on behalf of Britain, yet again failing to mention that in each instance the hostilities were initiated by Iceland by trying to detain and in some cases firing upon unarmed fishing vessels. You seems completely blind to the possibility that any level of blame can be placed at Icelands door.

As to ”Islas Malvinas belong juridically to the Argentines, as you should know!” You have yet to prove that as has Argentina.

If it is sovereignty is so obviously Argentine and the Argentine case so strong then please explain why Argentina has refused to take their case to the ICJ, the ONLY forum which can actually pass judgement?

Also please explain why Argentina ratified the 1850 Convention of Settlement without placing any reserve of sovereignty to the Falklands Islands? Given that this treaty stipulates that it resolves ALL difference between the two nations don't you find it odd that they failed to state ALL without prejudice to their Falkland Sovereignty claim? They didn't. Argentina's claim to sovereignty ended in 1850.

Britishbulldog, it was a fact that the Gen. Belggrano was sailing AWAY from the British task force and was not within the 200 miles zone. The attack was cowardly.--------We all know that she was sailing away that's not in dispute, you still do not grasp the fact that she could at any time turn around and continue to link up with the Aircraft Carrier that both could have seriously damaged the rescue of the Islanders held hostage by the bad guys, the bad guys by the way are the Argentines who blatantly invaded a small community of peaceful individuals. NOW THATS WHAT I CALL COWARDLY, not sinking a Battleship that could have impeded that rescue. In war thats what you do you get the upperhand first if you can, you fight on your terms not your enemys yours and yours alone, you pick the battle field to fight the battles you do not at any time let your enemy dictate the conditions, to do so means that the enemy has the upper hand. But then your from Iceland what do you know about conflict or war. Yes yes I know all about those puny little Cod Wars.

What you forgot to mention was that your puny little Iceland declared an Exclusive Economic Zone extending beyond its territorial waters and started to bully the British trawlers what the hell did you expect us to do sit back like the Argys would like us to do and do nothing? The only reason that we pulled back at the time was that your puny little Iceland had a NATO base that they threatened to close. And we could not have that happening because of the Russian threat . That and only that stopped us from continuing the Cod war when our allies asked us to stop which we did for the greater good of the community.Its seems that Iceland has a lot in common with Argentina, so I am not surprised that an Icelandic is siding with a corrupt Argentina as both countries persons are corrigibly crooked. Jón Ásgeir Jóhannesson, Jóhannes Jónsson, Lýður Guðmundsson and Águst Guðmundsson, Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson and Björgólfur Guðmundss.

332 Jon Valur Jensson:

What has ANY of that got to do with what i said?

“They even did somewhat similar to the reluctant people of Hong Kong, betraying them and handing them over to a dictatorship.”

If you'd looked this subject up you'd know that aside from the lease running out. There was no choise in this matter as HK island was military indefensible and china had said if it didn't get HK back it would just invade.

More you feed the rats.
The more chance of the plague.
Change channels, the grass is greener mm

LegionNi, its YOU who completely miss my point. As you should know, “Justice requires that equals be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Raphaela Schmid), and this applies well to your argument about the Isle of Wight and the Malvinas. There is no need to expect an invasion (by the Frogs? – the Dutch? – the Germans? – the Irish?!) into Wight, as any invasion would have to backed up by an attempt at a justification, such as old legal claims. And that does not apply here. Anyone with an open mind would see the whole difference between an occupation of the Malvinas and the Isle of Wight.

Both “Englander” and, of course, Britishbulldog have openly revealed here above thir prejudice against the right of Iceland and so many other countries to extend their fishery zones from mere 4 miles! Our extension in 1958, to 12 miles, was met with fierce and unequal attack by the British who wanted, as their Empire was crumbling down, to preserve their Rule Britannia! in the seven seas. They had no right to, and do not accuse us Icelanders to be first in attacking. The British behaved notoriously already around 1900, fishing up to 3 miles and even closer, in most of our fiords, and even killing three of our men rather than yield ( http://bb.is/Pages/26?NewsID=33341 ).

There was no international law about either 3, 4 or 12 miles, nor 50 miles. The fish banks around countries should, in the main, be theirs, not the destructive playground of the mightiest 'empires' around, be they the British, Spanish, German or that of the EU. And this is what, in fact, has become accepted as the general rule, not the arbitrary dominance of old John Bull.

And remember, Britishbulldog, that Björgólfur Thor Björgólfsson is a British citizen, not an Icelandic one. We as a nation are not liable for any conceivable financial crimes of individuals, or are you perhaps responsible for the crimes of other individuals in the UK?

Now try for a change to be reasonable in your next entries, imperialists!

341 Jon ”LegionNi, its YOU who completely miss my point. As you should know, “Justice requires that equals be treated equally and unequals unequally” (Raphaela Schmid), and this applies well to your argument about the Isle of Wight and the Malvinas.“

What utter, utter rubbish! I can't believe you are still trying to justify the Argentine invasion? I will put it as plainly as possible so that there can be no more misunderstanding. In your opinion was the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands justified?

That aside if we look you example that justice requires unequals to be treated unequally than how is that any different to the old saying ”To the victor go the spoils”?

Rules should be applied equally no matter who it is. In your example who judges who is equal and who isn't? You? Me? If the rules are left open too interpretation I could interpret them one way and you another.

You claim my example is not applicable while using the example of Hong Kong which couldn't be more different to that of the Falkland islands.

Again Argentina dropped its claim to the Falkland islands in the 1850 convention of settlement. What came before is irrelevant as the convention of settlement resolved ALL issues between Britain and Argentina. French settlement, irrelevant as the 1850 convention of settlement came after. Spanish claim, irrelevant as the convention of settlement came after. Expulsion of Argentine garrison in 1833, irrelevant ass the convention of settlement came after.

Why is it that anyone who disagrees with you is all of a sudden an imperialist?

By the way, just so we're clear, I fully agree that the people of Iceland shouldn't have to pay a penny of the money lost by investors in a bank based in Iceland. They made an investment, investment comes with risk, they only have themselves to blame. Much like hostile invasions on the part of Argentina don't come without risk, and like bank investors they only have themselves to blame. They started it, we finished it

British who wanted, as their Empire was crumbling down, to preserve their Rule Britannia!

More like preserve jobs (and therefore votes) in places like Hull and Grimsby. Ironically those are places where the majority of Iceland's catch is landed today - to be auctioned off... So you won your cod war. Don't you think you could be a bit magnanimous in victory?

I agree with you re Icesave etc. Caveat emptor. If you buy into an unrealistic interest rate offered by an Icelandic bank and said bank goes bust. Tough. That's business. I don't see why the citizens of Iceland should cough up. That's justice.

It's also just that Falkland Islanders should be free to determine their own future, to exercise rights which are enshrined in international law - it's such a pity you buy into Argie propaganda because of your obvious antipathy for the British rather than considering ALL the facts.

If you can give me the exact words where Argentina has “dropped its claims” to the Malvinas, by all means do so, LegionNi. If you cannot, why make all that fuzz and noise?

Argentina invaded when they knew they could do so without manslaughter. Mrs Thatcher sent in her forces when she knew they could not conquer without manslaughter, and she certainly did not wait to see if the Peruvian peace plan might become a bridge to end the conflict peacefully.

And now read this, at the World Factbook of the CIA, at the very beginning of the FI/Malvinas article ( https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html ):

”Background:
Although first sighted by an English navigator in 1592, the first landing (English) did not occur until almost a century later in 1690, and the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764. The colony was turned over to Spain two years later and the islands have since been the subject of a territorial dispute, first between Britain and Spain, then between Britain and Argentina. The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833. Argentina invaded the islands on 2 April 1982. The British responded with an expeditionary force that landed seven weeks later and after fierce fighting forced an Argentine surrender on 14 June 1982.“

Did you see that: ”the first settlement (French) was not established until 1764.“ – And this is what in those times entitled people to claim a territory as their own. Merely discovering a country from the sea, or landing there, constitutes no legal ground for a supremacy there.

And did you notice this: ”The colony was turned over to Spain two years later”? A land is not a colony until it is colonized – settled, made a habitation. The English did nothing of the sort before the French and Spanish. And why does The Times Atlas of World History, p. 227, say about the Falklands/Malvinas: “1770–1820 Spanish. 1820–33 Argentine. 1833 British”? Have you any clue?

Jonah the icelandic paranoid self publicist is back! Reading the CIA Factbook ! ... but then I suppose you would, wouldn't you. Time Atlas of the World ! lol, you've got a lot deeper to dig yet Jonah.

Bottom line - Argentina invaded in 1982 and then defied the Security Council Resolution that told them to get out. So they were thrown off the islands. They started it, they had to take the humiliation.The Security Council is unlikely to easily forget the snub.

As for sovereignty, the Argentine case is so weak that they FEAR going to the ICJ. The one court that can deal with their complaint. When Britain tried to force them to the ICJ over South Georgia and the SSI's they refused to recognise the court's jurisdiction. Happy to do so when they thought they could win over the pulp mill, but the big whinge, no!

Talking of courts, I gather that much like Argentina, Iceland is being taken to court over its debts. There IS a case to answer and it will be heard. A slow process, but it'll get there.

The Falkland Islands were British in 1765. They are British in 2011. Right and proper, for all the distortions of Think's Argie turnips. Get some cojones Argentina and take us to court!

Morning all, this thread is lasting well. No news then ....... well you know what they say :-)

“Three years later, the British did formally leave the islands and they passed into the Spanish Empire for the next forty years. This arrangement was formally recognised by the British in the 1790 Nootka Sound Convention by which Britain formally rejected any colonial ambitions in 'South America and the islands adjacent'. It also reflected a weakening of British power in the Western Hemisphere coming shortly after the embarrassing loss of the 13 colonies partly thanks to French and Spanish intervention.

The Spanish claim on the islands would falter with the South American Wars for Independence at the start of the nineteenth century. The Spanish removed their formal representative and settlers from the island from 1810 and completed it by 1811. The islands were left to their own fate for the next decade as sealing and whaling ships might call in from time to time to take advantage of the harbour and fresh water. It was not to be until 1820 that the United Provinces of Rio de la Plata would send a frigate to the islands in order to assert their control as part of the legacy of post-colonial Spanish claims to authority there. Buenos Aires would appoint their first governor in 1823”

http://www.britishempire.co.uk/maproom/falkland.htm

How can you maintain the Falkland Islands were British in 1765?!

The British have got a far too great share of the world's riches. Everybody knows except you and a few bigoted imperialist enthusiasts, Redhoyt.

So why should I pity Westminster? Give me one good reason. Yet, although some have been relating here some of the crimes of past administrations in Argentina, I must say it overwhelms me even to start writing about all the crimes of England.

Actually, G.K. Chesterton wrote a book with that title: The crimes of England. Shouldn't we read it, Redhoyt?

You look very different from Mr. J.A. Roberts. I really valued the fairness of his entry No. 343. Thanks, Roberts. We might be able to unite on some proposal of a fair compromise on what's left to discuss.

Jon,

The Times Atlas of World History is wrong. It does not matter whether the Falklands were Spanish or British before1816. What they are not and never have been is Argentine. Argentina did not inherit the claim from Spain.

Argentina achieved its independence by force without Spain's consent ie by unilateral secession. Spain did not begin to relinquish any of its territories in the Americas until 1836. And when Spain recognised Argentina in 1859 and 1863, it was not in a position to cede the Falklands to it. Argentina never establshed effective control of the Falklands and therefore never established any sovereignty over them. So when the British took over in 1833, it was Spain's prerogative to complain, not Argentina's

And by the way, the Spanish never settled the Falklands. All they had there were a garrison and a prison in Port Louis.

“dab14763”, you write: “It does not matter whether the Falklands were Spanish or British before 1816” – obviously unable to prove Redhoyt's fantastic assertion that “the Falkland Islands were British in 1765”.

Again back to Chesterton – a piece from his book ( http://www.fullbooks.com/The-Crimes-of-England.html ):

“The conduct of the English towards the Irish after the Rebellion was quite simply the conduct of one man who traps and binds another, and then calmly cuts him about with a knife. The conduct during the Famine was quite simply the conduct of the first man if he entertained the later moments of the second man, by remarking in a chatty manner on the very hopeful chances of his bleeding to death. The British Prime Minister publicly refused to stop the Famine by the use of English ships. The British Prime Minister positively spread the Famine, by making the half-starved populations of Ireland pay for the starved ones. The common verdict of a coroner's jury upon some emaciated wretch was ”Wilful murder by Lord John Russell“: and that verdict was not only the verdict of Irish public opinion, but is the verdict of history. But there were those in influential positions in England who were not content with publicly approving the act, but publicly proclaimed the motive. The _Times_, which had then a national authority and respectability which gave its words a weight unknown in modern journalism, openly exulted in the prospect of a Golden Age when the kind of Irishman native to Ireland would be ”as rare on the banks of the Liffey as a red man on the banks of the Manhattan.“ It seems sufficiently frantic that such a thing should have been said by one European of another, or even of a Red Indian ...”

“dab14763”, you write: “It does not matter whether the Falklands were Spanish or British before 1816” – obviously unable to prove Redhoyt's fantastic assertion that “the Falkland Islands were British in 1765”.

I was not attempting to prove they were British in 1765. Just that they have never been Argentine.

The Falkland Islands were claimed for Britain in 1765. FACT!

What's more it's proveable. We were there till Spain ejected our garrison in 1770. Then, following Spain's defeat in 1771 we went back. The garrison stayed till 1774. The British whalers and sealers kept going, every year.

So the islands were British.

Spain had a claim following its purchase from the French company in 1767, but Spain's claim has elapsed ... well it hasn't attempted to go back in the last 178 years anyway!

How much the British have or had is hardly a valid argument.

As I said Jonah, you have a lot more research to do :-)

Start with something simple ... just up your street !

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

Then get into some detail -

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islandso/history/history2.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands

1765 isn't very controversial ... some would opt for 1690 :-)

Of course that's just the history ... wait till you get into international law lol

Start with something simple ... just up your street !
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands
www.falklands.info/history/history2.html
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origins_of_Falkland_Islanders
www.falklandshistory.org/gettingitright.pdf
Those links,are GARBAGE.The only one may be to read is Darwin's chronicle.
Let see,what a reputed American University has to say about the Nootka,
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
The origin of the dispute over the Falkland Islands is found in the 16th and 17th centuries, when
several nations, including Spain, Great Britain and Holland, made initial tide to the area. Spain first
gained control of the area in 1713 with the signing of the Peace Treaty of Utrecht, which established
that Spain had the right to control areas near Spanish dominions. In the latter half of the 18th century
Great Britain gradually relinquished any rights to the South Atlantic area. First it abandoned Port
Egmond, a colony which had been built on the island, and shortly thereafter, in 1790 it signed the
Nootka Sound Convention, giving up any rights to settle in the area and acknowledging Spanish
sovereignty over islands of the southern coast of South America.
In 1816 Argentina declared its independence from Spain and gained control of the Falkland
Islands. In 1833, British warships seized the islands, claiming the area for Great Britain. Argentina
responded by filing official protest through with ambassador in London, but British control of the
island continued for many years and in 1852 the Falkland Islands Company received a royal charter to
develop the colony fully.
On December 14, 1960, the United Nations passed Resolution 1514, which called for the end of
colonialism. As a part of this resolution, Great Britain listed the Falklands as one of its colonial
possessions. The United Nations, therefore, called upon Great Britain and to negotiate control of the
islands in Resolution 2065. Unfortunately, negotiations remained deadlocked for the next 17 years.
http://www.duke.edu/w

I knew that Wikipedia stuff, Redhoyt, but I notice that you do not mention Encyclopedia Britannica. Why not? There you can read:

“The French founded the islands’ first settlement, on East Falkland in 1764, and the British settled West Falkland in 1765. In 1770 the Spanish purchased the French settlement and expelled the British, but the latter’s settlement was restored in 1771. In 1820 Argentina proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands, but the British took them back in 1833.” *)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/200765/Falkland-Islands

If this, in your view, proves your point, I'm afraid your judgment can hardly be said to be reliable––rather somewhat biased, obviously. Why on earth?!

And why do you keep calling me Jonah? Defective linguistic knowledge?
Jonah = Jonas, whereas:
Jón / John < Johannes (Lat.) < Ioannes (Gk.) < Jochanan (Hebrew).

And by the way, what's your Christian name, Redhoyt?
Sorry, did you say Foreign Office?

*) And “dab14763”, there you got something to think about. You said the Falklands “have never been Argentine”. Nothing less that the Encyclopædia Britannica contradicts that boastful statement of yours.

Jonah - Britannica seems quite correct - “ the British took them back”, in other words the British had held them before! Poor reasoning? Not really!

At least you now know that the British were there before the Spanish, and a very long time before Argentina was a twinkle in a revolutionary's eye. As I said, you have a lot to learn. And you consider your views to be unbiased .... hardly!

You obviously don't read posts properly ... you can call me RED :-)

(351) Hoyt

At comment 345 you ridicule the use of the CIA Factbook and the Time Atlas as sources of information…..............................

At the same time you recommend:

Two English Wikipedia articles written and controlled by British “Keyboard Warriors” (as a quick look at the discussion section of each article will prove)

And

“Falklands Info” a private webpage written by a couple of British squatters in Malvinas. http://www.falklands.info/aboutus.html

And

“Falklandshistory.org”, an “historical” propaganda pamphlet written by Mr. Pepper and Mr. Pascoe, two employees of the Falkland Islands Association, a “British Charitable Association”;.
http://www.falklands.inf

Allow me to chuckle™

PS:
The “Darwinean” link is the only interesting one…..

Think ... I didn't ridicule the CIA Fact book.... rather I found it funny that our new found paranoid plaything would read and rely on it ..... after all he thinks that I am a whole government department. But then maybe he thinks the CIA may give him a mention :-)

The problem with ALL works about history is that they were written by someone whose bias may or may not be known. It's the sources that matter ..... don't they? Wikipedia at least offers the opportunity to check references.

But as I've said before, there is only one place to test all of these views ..... but you won't go, will you?

Please ... chuckle away :-)

My only bias is on the side of truth and justice, F.O. Redhoyt!

Read http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/200765/Falkland-Islands (further down, in more accurate detail):
”History
The English navigator John Davis in the Desire may have been the first person to sight the Falklands, in 1592, but it was the Dutchman Sebald de Weerdt who made the first undisputed sighting of them about 1600. The English captain John Strong made the first recorded landing in the Falklands, in 1690, and named the sound between the two main islands after Viscount Falkland, a British naval official. The name was later applied to the whole island group. The French navigator Louis-Antoine de Bougainville founded the islands’ first settlement, on East Falkland, in 1764, and he named the islands the Malovines. The British, in 1765, were the first to settle West Falkland, but they were driven off in 1770 by the Spanish, who had bought out the French settlement about 1767. The British outpost on West Falkland was restored in 1771 after threat of war, but then the British withdrew from the island in 1774 for reasons of economy, without renouncing their claim to the Falklands. Spain maintained a settlement on East Falkland (which it called Soledad Island) until 1811.
In 1820 the Buenos Aires government, which had declared its independence from Spain in 1816, proclaimed its sovereignty over the Falklands. In 1831 the U.S. warship Lexington destroyed the Argentine settlement on East Falkland in reprisal for the arrest of three U.S. ships that had been hunting seals in the area. In early 1833 a British force expelled the few remaining Argentine officials from the island without firing a shot. In 1841 a British civilian lieutenant governor was appointed for the Falklands, and by 1885 a British community of some 1,800 people on the islands was self-supporting. Argentina regularly protested Britain’s occupation of the islands.
After World War II ...”

Argentina never renounced its rightful claim.

Argentina never got a rightful claim ... they were third.

The main argument was between Britain and Spain. Jewett was a jonny-come- lately whose remit Argentina have always failed to provide evidence for and who, in any case, didn't stay and didn't set up a settlement. He even forgot to mention what he'd done to his masters. Very strange.

Neither Spain nor Britain abandoned nor renounced the claims that they'd made in the 1760's. Argentina was too late.

But keep going jonah me boy .... you've got to get through a lot more references yet lol :-)

(see Think, he's going to be so much fun! Can I play, oh please let me play, I do just love a pompous fool :-)

“Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of ”serious“ errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html

I am sure that Prof Freedman, a vice principal at King's College got the facts from their own Encyclopedia Britannica, not before the islands paid employees Dr Pascoe and Mr Pepper find the way to change their official history.

(356) Hoyt

You say:
But as I've said before, there is only one place to test all of these views ..... but you won't go, will you?

I say:
It seems that you won’t go either……..
Why don’t you take Spain to the ICJ?
Spain and Britain have both recognized the compulsory jurisdiction of the Court.
Spain and Britain have both the right to bring each other before the Court by filing an application instituting proceedings with the Court ……

http://www3.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=ES

http://www3.icj-cij.org/jurisdiction/?p1=5&p2=1&p3=3&code=ES

Chuckling away……………………….

Think, thanks a lot for a sharp comment at No. 355! Everybody knows that Wikipedia is not reliable in many regards, but as to the other given sources of Redhoyt, that was new to me, and how utterly biased they are. Just shows his own bias.

Redhoyt is bold enough to pretend that the mere temporary landing of John Strong in 1690 gives him a strong argument for British sovereignty! Yet that man was not strong enough to settle there, even less to leave an offspring there, or a single soul!

You see from the Britannica text that the British remained there, in the 18th Cent., a) only in WEST Falkland, and b) only in 1765–70, and 1771–1774, a whole 8 years! You see here how slight evidence the empire's spokesmen need to rest on their fanciful claims!

In contrast, the French and Spanish settlements remained through 1764–1767 and 1767–1811 respectively (47 years). The Argentine colony was taken illegally by force in 1833. Never until then did the British have the slightest claim to East Falkland. The British can thus, as in so many other cases, be seen as the unlawful usurper of other peoples' rights. Perhaps that was just their usual piratish way of behaviour around the Seven Seas.

It takes time to reform, and the Foreign Office is a stubborn phenomenon!

Rehoyt does not even respect the respectful Encyclopædia Britannica, which admits: “Argentina regularly protested Britain’s occupation of the islands.”

A correction, No. 353, final sentence: “Nothing less that” “Nothing less than ...”

One way of a COMPROMISE, if the Argentine yielded a whole lot, would be that the British would take West Falkland, where they had tried to settle in the 18th Cent., and the Argentine East Malvinas, where the French (and Spanish) had settled even earlier and longer. The EEZ for the whole archipelago should be Argentine, whereas South Georgia could be British.

That said, it is not likely that the Third World would agree that the old, insatiable empire should have anything at all.

Redhoyt

Is this webpage you want us to read and get history facts?

People Behind the Site
”We are Jason Lewis and Alison Inglis, a husband and wife team and we try to run this site. Jason has lived in the Falklands for over 15 years and Alsion over 7 years. We have two lively children who were born here and do take a lot of our time. So if the site doesn't appear to have been worked on for a while we're probably taking the kids to another party!

http://www.falklands.info/aboutus.html

Sorry but I think the Encyclopedia Britannica is more credible.

@361 'Yet that man was not strong enough to settle there, even less to leave an offspring there, or a single soul!'

If that is the measure of possession maybe its best the RGs give Ushuaia back to the British....

*) And “dab14763”, there you got something to think about. You said the Falklands “have never been Argentine”. Nothing less that the Encyclopædia Britannica contradicts that boastful statement of yours.

But the evidence supports it.

TWIMC

About Wikipedia:
I want hereby to state my deep appreciation and respect for such a valuable site.
A childhood’s dream…...........................................Alexandria’s library on my lap!
A shame that so many turnips soot it with their petty idiocy………..

david,you are such a liar..
Do you want to pull back the brushing done to you by Sadow,in the other site,in which you try to convince others about the application of uti possidetis?
remember,david? You disappeared after,you really looked like a fool!!
Uti possidetis is the basis of every treat of peace unless the contrary be expressed.

The treaty of peace leaves every thing in the state in which it found it unless there be some express stipulation to the contrary. The existing state of possession is maintained except so far as altered by the terms of the treaty. If nothing be said about the conquered country or places they remain with the conqueror and his title cannot afterwards be called in question. During the continuance of the war the conqueror in possession has only an usufructuary right and the latent title of the former sovereign continues until the treaty of peace by its silent operation or express provisions extinguishes ...
Shadow answered:David, queres presentar un caso de uti possidetis con el tratado Arana-Southern, el cual no tiene nada que ver con Malvinas, colocando a las islas como territorio de conquista, lo irónico es que según ustedes no es un botín de guerra, y solo basta remontarse a Parish que en 1831 al elevar la protesta formal a Guido habla de los derechos de soberanía de su majestad Británica.
¿Entendes el significado implícito de lo que estas citando?
Nada más ni nada menos estas diciendo que el titulo presentado por Gran Bretaña en la ocupación de las islas es simplemente la conquista y el uso de la fuerza sobre el vencido......
http://www.topix.com/forum/world/falkland-islands/TR0KI67QOU0O96MB3/p4
david: Be serious for ONCE!!!

One more 1982 letter for all those interested ones!

To the Hon. Norman St John-Stevas,
The House of Commons, London.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 Richmond Terr.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cambridge, CB5 8AJ,
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 May, 1982.

Dear Sir,

Along with Sir Ian Gilmour, you are the Member of Parliament for whom I have most respect, and with whom I have been most able to identify my political views. Therefore I wish to send you the following copy of a letter of mine to the Prime Minister, as I think this does have a very important message for your Government, however bluntly it had to be stated. Hitherto I have had great trust in your balanced judgement, but this (honestly) was severely affected when I heard your views on the Anglo-Argentine dispute on the BBC a few days ago. This certainly may serve as a useful lesson to me that no one can be absolutely trusted among men on earth, and yet it hurts me undeniably. Let's only hope that your views are rather the outcome of ignorance and prejudice than of the deliberate or unconcious wish to re-gain the lost favour you had with your Prime Minister.

I would like to add one point to what I said in my letter to the Prime Minister. The measures of war applied by the British in the last few days are, whatever Cardinal Hume has said (out of ignorance of the rights the Argentine have to the islands), entirely unjustifiable according to the conditions of the just war as laid down by, for instance, St Thomas Aquinas. I hope you will be able to appreciate this point, for in your book The Right to Life you say on p. 116: “... Such a right should only be invoked in the last resort when all other means of warding off the attack have failed.” Has this been done? No, in fact the attacks of the British on the Argentine forces, culminating in this brutal sinking of a crew of 1000 men, have come only ...

[To be contd.]

Encyclopedia Britannica - how quaint :-)

Actually I don't really believe in 1690 ... but 1765/6 is more than enough to establish sovereignty. Once gained it has to be renounced, abandoned or lost!

Sovereignty has never been renounced - abandoned or lost are the sort of arguments that would have to be played out before a court.

As regards Spain Think ... we actually have the Rock so it's really up to Spain to take us there! Of course that argument could also be applied to the Falkland Islands. Possession is, as they say, nine-tenths of the law.

And quite right MoreCrap ... in fact the falklands info site and the empire site that you are so inclined to quote pretty well cancel themselves out via the same disclaimers.

As for Wikipedia etc, you are missing the point.The point is that the references are there so that the sources can be checked. The same goes for the 'Getting it Right' document. Full references are important. That's how I got to Palmerston's letter of 1834. Any history, even Britannica's, is merely an opinion.

Opinions can only become reality in a court ...... and there we are again, back at the ICJ.

Of course the history is merely a footnote. The only question ever likely to be put before the ICJ is, “ Do the Falkland islanders have the right to self determination?”. This is, of course, the ONE question that Argentina fears. The one their lawyers have already told them that they will lose.

ps Jonah, glad to see you are starting to learn. But I should point out that your new friends will not appreciate being told that Britain can retain South Georgia and the SSI's. that's one of the most important parts you see. The stepping stones to the British Antartic claims. At least Think is honest. He doesn't tend to argue much. He knows that Argentina just WANTS the islands. Geopolitics. I can understand that. The rest is just a five minute argument :-)

Keep digging, you'll find the road well trod lol

The remainder of the letter (367) to St John-Stevas:

No, in fact the attacks of the British on the Argentine forces, culminating in this brutal sinking of a crew of 1000 men, have come only in the next few days after American and Japanese bans on trade with Argentina. Can you conceivably claim that you have already seen the full effect of the trade embargo on Argentina, or of diplomatic efforts to solve the crisis? Or may I even ask, is Britain perhaps afraid of the intervention of the United Nations, particularly of the General Assembly? And is it really the case that Britain is attacking now simply “because of the weather”, as I have heard on Radio [illegible in the photocopy of the letter, probably:] Four (I think from a labour MP).

Obviously, you are in a difficult position now to voice discontent about the last events, for everybody knows that Britain will be heavily criticized for this internationally, and that the Government must come under fire. But please try to think first of justice and truth, not of slavish obedience to your Government. There is one who is constantly watching us, and expects everyone to keep faithful to his holy will. So be not afraid to speak out the truth, and to demand immediate cessation of attacks on Argentine ships which are not unequivocally threatening your own forces.

I would like to end this with an interesting note from your book (loc.cit.): “Unconditional surrender as a war aim is a policy opposed to the Christian doctrine of war and peace.” –– Did you see it fit to remind your fellow-parliamentarians of this fact as you heard of the Admiral's demand that the Argentines should surrender unconditionally? Anyway, I hope you will keep it in mind next time this happens.

With respect and kind regards,
yours in Christ,

J.V. Jensson (sign.),
postgraduate research student
(in fact, my research is on St Thomas Aquinas).

PS. To remove any doubt you might have as to my nationality : I am not an Argentinian but from Iceland.

He'll be getting his old holiday photo's out next :-(

If anyone is interested I can post my unpublished, unread, and in most cases unposted letters ( circa 1956/66) to the Pope re my views on the Treaty of Tordesillas.....

The natural resources of the two countries are not dissimilar, Argentina produces a lot of hot air, Iceland has little else but hot water....... pity about the cod...

..... and they wish to join the European Monetary Union ! Hardly an indication of good sense, although it may suggest a sense of humour which is generally believed to be missing in every nation north of the Humber :-)

No, we don't, Redhoyt! The people of Iceland don't – only those blindfolded ones in business and politics, and the europhiles which are around 1/3 of the population. Our leaders are treacherous to the Constitution as well as to national interest and the independence campaign tradition alike.

There are lessons to be learnt here. It strikes me Icelanders experience with Britain is analogous to the Falklanders experience with the Argentina, insofar as a large neighboring state seems like a Leviathan to a small community of people & must feel intimidating

Personally I found it interesting to read about Jon's experience as an Icelander at Cambridge. A remarkable adventure itself. I can imagine that it would have been an interesting experience to be immersed in a foreign society & culture. Given the contemporary “Cod Wars” disputes between Iceland & the UK, youthful enthusiasm & clashing bright intellects, I imagine political discussions with the British could sometimes become heated

I can see why Jon would chose to examine the Argentine viewpoint & also chose to voice his agreement with it. During the conflict of 1982, I thought it courageous to speak ones mind in a partisan society in the time of conflict. The writing of letters to the Times & British Members of Parliament to offer an alternative opinion was a valid use of the means of political expression open to members of British society

I look at these issues and reflect that Human history is the history of the movement of peoples to settle land & the competition between peoples for the use of land & its natural resources

I see parallels between the settlement of land by European colonialists in Africa, North & South America and the many wars fought between European rivals over these possessions

I also see that Argentina has been guilty in the same sense as the UK when it was the British Empire for acquiring territory from peoples who did not wish to be annexed

In the instance of the Falkland Islands, I see claims & counterclaims between the AR & UK rooted in the past, both with valid arguments, should one agree with either viewpoints key propositions

UN Res. 1514(XV) is a strong basis for freeing the Islanders from colonial rule; friendship & cooperation to solve remaining issues?

Jon

The French never established effective sovereign control over the whole of the Falklands, they neither imposed the rule of law nor ejected the British settlement.

The Spainsh occupied the islands after Britain left for some time, but Britain never renounced it's claim to sovereignty.

Argentina may have claimed sovereignty of the islands but this was not recognised by either Spain or Britain. Nor did Argentina ever establish effective sovereign control. Louis Vernet asked for British permission to settle on the islands as well as Argentine permission. The supposed Argentine settlement was a PRIVATE venture it was not a colony, and the first attempt failed anyway, though the second was somewhat more successful. Argentina's actual attempts to enforce sovereignty lasted a few months at most, was a miserable failure and is not enough to establish a claim to effective sovereign control.

Britain however has held effective and recongised sovereign control of the islands for almost 200 years.

In regards to the 1850 convention of settlement I do not have to identify the line which states Argentina renounces it's claim, because the document states it settles ALL differences. ALL Jon or are you saying that in 1850 Argentina did not consider British possesion of the Falklands to be a difference to be settled? If it was a difference in 1850, if they didn't dispute it then, why do they dispute it now? Could it be that Peron used it as have all the Argentina politicians since to win the popular vote?

I can't believe you are still trying to justify the Argentine invasion of the Falklands, and view it as somehow a benign act, deliberatley timed to avoid casualties while giving the impression that the British liberation of the islands was an act of barbarism? The Argentine invasion wasn't benign it was a cowardly, oppurtunistic attack of a Junta trying to prop up its failing popularity at home.

Dear Jon,
You write a lot but say little. You haven't answered any of my questions. Oh well time for coffee.
Keep up the good work boys. You've got him on the run.

322 Jon Valur Jensson And yes, the Argentine invasion in 1982 was among the most peaceful in modern history – for example, I cannot find a single casualty here:

You really are a twad:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1982_invasion_of_the_Falkland_Islands

The fighting was pretty intense, look at it this way, the average contact in Afghanistan lasts 2-4 hours, the fire fight around Government house and other areas lasted 24 hours.....Yeah pretty dam peaceful....if your idea of peaceful is civilians crapping themselves and cowering in their houses with bullets zipping through the walls and a 24 hour slug fest.....

Seems that “old” Jenssen is a bit of an Icelandic Nationalist.
People who don't agree with him are biased.
People who hold a different view of history are prejudiced.
Icelanders who disagree with his views on the EU are not acting in the Icelandic National Interest.
I have no problem with Iceland acting in its own National Interest. Argentina already does with its SA neighbours and its attempted blockade of the Falkland Islands.
All I would say is don't get too upset when the UK also acts in its own National interest be that either in the North or South Atlantic.

Jon

In #344 you refer to the CIA web site as below. I assume to try and prove your point with some evidence.

”And now read this, at the World Factbook of the CIA, at the very beginning of the FI/Malvinas article ( www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/fk.html ):“

You then go on to paste the background article from the site which states:

”The UK asserted its claim to the islands by establishing a naval garrison there in 1833.”

You yourself have stated that Britain first settled the islands in 1765. I am curious therefore why you would present the site as evidence when you yourself know it to be inaccurate?

Well said Domingo. In this UN age it is the UN Charter and UN Resolutions which count. Not whether the French or the Spanish were there first. Take note Jon Valur Jensson! UN SC Resolution 1514. The Falkland Islanders have a right to self determination enshrined in international law.

Whatever happened before the UK and Argentina ratified the UN Charter is interesting, debatable but irrelevant. The Falkland Islanders are the only ones who can decide what happens to the Falkland Islands and when. Not the UK and not Argentina.

The Foreign Office and other British interest watchdogs are keen to follow up argumentative as well as shallow rhetorical advances that they think some of their own men & comrades-in-arms have made here. Now they add new names to the game, seeking even further to provide apparent proof of their case, possibly using the method, too, of letting one of them (Domingo, even with a Spanish name!) serve as the 'fair' mediating guy who tries to wind up the debate by offering a few seeming words of solace to an old & earnest opponent of the empire's greed and prolonged unlawfulness.

Try something else! I will not yield. And yet, now it's time for South American and Argentine readers to do something about this, to speak for their own mind, as my private time is not unlimited for this.

UN Security Council Resolution 1514* does NOT even mention the Falklands or the Malvinas. It talks about “the principles of equal rights and self-determination of all peoples,” but the Falkland Islanders are not a people (nation), much less so than the Basques in Northern Spain or the Catholics in Northern Ireland.

As it says here**, “the General Assembly of the United Nations did not explicitly address the issue of the Falkland Islands until 1965, which Resolution 2065 noted ”the existence of a dispute between the Governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland concerning sovereignty over [said] Islands“, and invited those governments ”to proceed without delay with the negotiations... with a view to finding a peaceful solution to the problem, bearing in mind the provisions and objectives of the Charter of the United Nations and of General Assembly UN Resolution 1514 (XV) and the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas).“”**

To be contd.

* http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514
** http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_Nations_General_Assembly_Resolution_1514

Told you ... a total d*ckhead :-)

No understanding of 1514

Thinks Domingo is a CIA/Foreign Office 'plant'

Your new found friend is probably going to turn out to be weirder than the Marvin twins and thicker than MoreCrap :-)

The UK has not been trying, since 1965, to find “a peaceful solution to the problem,” to “proceed without delay with the negotiations” about the islands' future. And notice, there is a whole range of compromise options possible in tis case, as I indicated (NOT with a proposal of mine, though, at the end of entry 361, and Redhoyt was wrong in overinterpreting me to that effect in his entry 368).

But it is obvious, for example, that there could be several ways of preserving ”the interests of the population of the Falkland Islands (Malvinas)” (Resol. 2065, in 1965, even retaining the stress on ambiguity as to the name of and legal rights to the area) WITHOUT giving them ALONE any right so settle the matter among themselves (be they fewer than 1,800 or more numerous, as they now are).

It is interesting to see France's reasons for support of Britain: “France has been particularly supportive of the British position, and provided invaluable help to the British military on the French supplied aircraft and missiles of the Argentine military during the Falklands War. France is also motivated by the fact that it, like the UK, retains many overseas territories that are subject to rival sovereignty claims including the Glorioso Islands, Mayotte and Tromelin.”* – Self-interest again!

And this is a very telling article piece** showing the very widespread support Argentina is enjoying in its legal claim to the Malvinas:

“Supporters of the Argentine claim

The XXI Unity Summit of the Rio Group, plus the Caribbean Community declared support for Argentina in the sovereignty dispute on 23 February 2010.[65][69]
Peru is the most vocal supporter of the Argentine claim, and provided material aid during the Falklands War. Brazil officially supports the Argentine claim over the Falklands and the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands,[70] and has voiced its support at international organisations.[71] Mexico has also spoken in favour of the Argentine claim. ...”
[Contd.]

Jon

If we don't agree with you then we are mere watch dogs for the British government. You accuse Domingo of being a fake? Now your just being paranoid. Making out it is some kind of consipiracy is just plain pathetic.

If you didn't want people to debate the points you make, to put forward counter arguments then why are you here? What did you expect?

Continued text, belonging to entry 383, and with references for both:

“... Chile supported the United Kingdom during the Falklands War, but the post-Pinochet democratic governments have given greater support to the Argentine claim,[72][73] calling on several occasions for the resum[ption] of the negotiations at the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonization [74]
Spain, although part of the European Union, has given tacit support to the Argentine claim, voting in the Argentine interest in UN Security Council votes during the Falklands War,[75] although at this time Spain was not a member of the European Union. Argentina, for its part, supports Spain's claim to Gibraltar, also under British sovereignty and also occupied by people who consider themselves British.[76]
The Union of South American Nations, the Andean Community, and Mercosur have all supported the Argentine claim since their creation, and the Ibero-American Summit has called for negotiations.[77][78]
The People's Republic of China officially supports the Argentine claim.[79]”

But stubborn they are, the British, trying to the last hour to preserve whatever remains there are of their grievously missed Empire!

Attention: dictatorial Chile did not support Argentina, but democratic Chile did so, just as the democratically elected governments of Argentina have done themselves. This is not a matter of a junta's policy, but of an age-old legal claim of Argentina to its natural islands off the country, within their continental shelf, and a former permanent part of the country and of the Viceroyalty of the Rio de la Plata, but coveted and swallowed by a distant empire which tried so successfully to ensure its naval supremacy in the seven oceans.

* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Supporters_of_the_British_claim
** http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falkland_Islands_sovereignty_dispute#Supporters_of_the_British_claim

Jonah is selective too - “ ... 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. Its mention is retained in the treaty replacing the abandoned Constitution, the Treaty of Lisbon. ....... The Commonwealth of Nations recognises the islands as a British territory, though members of the Caribbean Community have recently stated support for the Argentine position...”

There is no ambiguity ... the Falkand Islands are British :-)

Of course if Iceland gets admitted to the EU then it'll have to legally accept the Lisbon Treaty !

That'll put Jonah on our side ...... hmmmm :-(

Redhoyt I to have noticed Jon's ability to be very selective.

Another example is in his post 383 and 385.

He points out that France supports Britains claim, but points out that this is clearly self interest due to Frances claim to Glorioso Islands, Mayotte and Tromelin.

BUT when he mentions that Spain has given tacit support to the Argentine claim he makes no statement of self interest! Yet he has the cheek to accuse others of shallow rhetorical advances?!

Who is that “Jonah”, Redhoyt? And what is YOUR real name and profession?
Of course this is an optimal situation for the British: to have access to a website where they need not disclose their own names. We could be dealing here with one or two Falkland Islanders and 2–3 on the staff of the British authorities.

Of course the EU takes sides with Britain; according to the stipulation of ES's own treaties, it does so, and works for that 42.5% part of Europe's self-intersts, so this is not a proof of anything except unholy solidarity and self-interest!

A am and shall remain a firm opponent and campaigner against the annexation of the Republic of Iceland into that European super-state, Mr. or Mrs. Redhoyt! That federal state (as their parliament aspires to, 1999) and Großmacht (as Jacques Delors aspired to in 1991, in Der Spiegel) and Empire (as Barroso aspires to, in 2007) would take over the supreme and prioritized legislative powers of Iceland's soil, fishery banks and the people itself, and this will never become acceptable to me or any other well-meaning conscious Icelander.

Isn't he magnificent Think? We have to keep him! Seems that Iceland is not bereft of it's own selection of root vegetables ! At least he claims to be conscious, which is more than MoreCrap does!!

Forgot to say before ... loved the TM :-)

Jon

“Of course this is an optimal situation for the British: to have access to a website where they need not disclose their own names. We could be dealing here with one or two Falkland Islanders and 2–3 on the staff of the British authorities.”

Again with the paranoia and consipiracy theories. You should really see someone about that.

Come out with your names, if you dare.

Phillip Nicholls.

There does that calm your paranoia.

Fine, thanks! And how comes you are interested in this, or do you have any connection with the Falklands ... or Britain, legionary?

My paranoia waned away! I can now walk upright among people!!!

Well I am British, though to be fair I consider myself English first, British second and hey if it helps I wish we like Iceland had a little less to do with the unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. We clearly disagree on the Falklands but in that at least we can find common ground.

Magnificent ... Jonah can walk upright .... while watching his own back! Tricky :-)

.http://www.royalnavy.mod.uk/operations-and-support/surface-fleet/type-42-destroyers/hms-edinburgh/news/roughers_for_hms_edi.htm

And the navy is all you need,
Come rain or shine,
And as for the argies, they have a new claim
It’s called lollypops
Free to all sailors in their ports,
Well “” they have to do something [having no ships that float lolol]

Thanks, Nicholls, and interesting to see your view on the Brussels pheonmenon.

I guess we have to wait for ages to see Mr or Miss Redhoyt to come out of his or her den. In the meantime, he or she can continue acting like a masked sniper in the dark.

Japanese sniper ..... duck !

The name's Hoyt ..... Red Hoyt ..... and I prefer it shaken, not stirred ! Stirred hurts .........

:-)

Prime Minister of Iceland Mr. Geir H. Haarde
Prime Minister's Office
Iceland
Dear Prime Minister Haarde,

I write to express my disappointment at Iceland's recent decision to resume commercial whaling and international trade in whale meat.

Iceland now joins Norway and Japan as the world's three rogue whaling nations. Your country has become the North Korea of whalers displaying complete contempt for international conservation law and total disrespect for conservation and world opinion.

Iceland's announcement to kill 30 Minke and nine fin whales defies the International Whaling Commission (IWC) moratorium on commercial whaling - a decision accepted by your government in 1982. It was Sea Shepherd Conservation Society that convinced you, in 1986, to finally stop your illegal whaling.

Twenty years ago, on November 16, 1986, Sea Shepherd crew sank half the Icelandic whaling fleet and destroyed the whale meat processing plant in Reykjavik. That action was taken in response to Iceland violating the global moratorium the first year it was imposed.

Icelandic authorities refused to charge the Sea Shepherd crew despite Captain Watson turning himself in to the authorities in Iceland to demand that they lay charges. Your country refused to charge Sea Shepherd because Iceland knew it was in violation of international law and it knew Sea Shepherd were put on trial it would be putting Iceland's whale killing on trial in front of the watchful eyes of the world.

Sea Shepherd is making plans to return to Iceland next year to confront these ruthless Icelandic pirate whalers once again and I fully support this. Whaling has no place in the 21st century. It is cruel, unnecessary, and immoral.

I reiterate my opposition to the Government of Iceland's plans to resume commercial whaling and meat trade. I urge Iceland to focus on developing its far more lucrative and sustainable whale watching industry.

Please, make sure that your country doesn't need to stand trial to the world's opini

I've just realised, Jonah has me down as a 'he' or 'she' .... bugger! I quite liked being a whole department :-)

I feel sorry for Domingo, even I don't take the p*ss (tomar el pelo)... naive but genuine. Says more about Jonah's powers of deduction than it does about Domingo though.

Still, another day done .... see ya all tomorrow :-)

@381 Jon Valur Jensson

If you could be bothered to trawl through comments on this website you'll see that Domingo has made regular contributions for quite some time, so I think you should be careful in your accusations - particularly since you have only recently started to contribute.

Perhaps you forgot to read point 5 of Resolution 1514:
“5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.”

The Falkland Islands were on the UN list of Non-Self-Governing Territories in 1960 when the this resolution was passed, the resolution DOES refer to the Falkland Islands in exactly the same way that it refers to every other Non-Self-Governing Territory. There is absolutely no UN Resolution which denies the Falkland Islanders the same rights as those peoples of any other Non-Self-Governing Territory

Please show us in any UN Security Council or General Assembly resolution which refers to the the Falkland Islands directly or indirectly which limits the Falkland Islanders rights?

Please show us in any UN Security Council or General Assembly resolution which says the only solution to the sovereignty dispute is a transfer of sovereignty to Argentina, or that Falkland Islanders rights are limited because of the dispute or that the Falkland Islands are rightfully Argentine territory?

J.A. Roberts, thanks for replying. But it was most assuredly not the intention of the US CC with its Resol. 1514 to say that, for example, the people of Gibraltar are a nation who has a right to establish an independent state.

The simple fact is: Res. 1514 did not mention the FI/Malvinas.

I guess the meaning of 'peoples', in your reference, is = nations. A mere sample of about 3,000 Britons and other adventurers pasturing their sheep on those islands does not constitute a nation. This is like a little sea village in Iceland, able to run one trawlers and some boats. It is a cheap trick of the British to shelter behind their shallow, artificial assertion that they are supporting a self-governing people. They are not. This is simply one of the dependancies of Great Britain, important for their military purposes, expansionist capacities in the Antarctic, perhaps selling or renting fishery quotas to the Spanish, etc.

388 Jon
“Of course this is an optimal situation for the British: to have access to a website where they need not disclose their own names. We could be dealing here with one or two Falkland Islanders and 2–3 on the staff of the British authorities”

Jon you can be dealing with members of the illegal colonial British Government in Malvinas itself!


“The Hon Mr Bill Luxton’s Motion for Adjournment Speech”

“Mr Speaker, we continue to be subject to the hysterical out-pouring of vitriol from the present Argentine regime and why we can’t be robust in countering some of the worst excesses. you only have to read some of the rabid and extreme comment on Mercopress..”

http://www.sartma.com/art_8771.html

The simple fact is: Res. 1514 did not mention any territory or colony, yet it specifically refers to “Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories” of which the Falkland Islands was one (as was Gibraltar). As you are no doubt already aware, a “Non-Self-Governing Territory” is a very specific status under the UN Charter and Resolutions.

Surely if the General Assembly were going to make exceptions in the cases of the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar (now that you mention it), then that would have been made plain in the resolution. There is no exception. No limitation. No difference from any other Non-Self-Governing Territory.

The number of inhabitants makes absolutely no difference to the right of self determination. This can be seen in practice, as already mentioned in a comment further up, where the UN has Tokelau on its list of Non-Self-Governing Territory, in other words a candidate for independence. Tokelau has a population of just over 1400.

If the Falklands were for military purposes, then why were they defended by no more than a party of Royal Marines (about 20 men) until the 1982 invasion?

If the Falklands when completely independent the UK would still have South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as stepping stones to the Antarctic, so your argument fails just there.

The Falkland Island government sells the fishing licenses to the Spanish or whoever wants to fish in their waters. The FI Government accrues the revenues and control them, not the British Government, not the UK, so that argument falls over too... If it was not for the military garrison the Falkland Islands would not cost the UK tax-payer a penny. As it is, the garrison costs less than 1% of the UK defence budget, so it's not exactly a hardship

Jon

“It is a cheap trick of the British to shelter behind their shallow, artificial assertion that they are supporting a self-governing people.”

Hardly. Before the Falklands War the British government had come very close to handing sovereignty over to Argentina, it was only the Falkland Islanders themselves leading a campaign against this that stopped it.

“This is simply one of the dependancies of Great Britain, important for their military purposes, expansionist capacities in the Antarctic, perhaps selling or renting fishery quotas to the Spanish, etc.”

Britain doesn't need the Falklands for this when we have the South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands, Islands to which Argentina has never been able to clarify why they claim them, having never held sovereignty of the islands in anyway shape or form. As to renting out fishing quotas any money made would go to the Falkland Islands not to Britain as they have their own elected government with control of their own finances.

I would be interested to hear if you can supply justification for Argentinas claim to the South Sandwich and South Georgia Islands. No Argentine contributor ever has.

Comment removed by the editor.

Well done Think, I'm sure an Icelanders just love to be addressed in Danish....

My understanding of the intent of the UN GA regarding 1514(XV) was to remove unfair colonial forms of governments from peoples and to allow those people so governed a free choice of the form of self-government they wanted and also a free choice of association or independence from their colonial past

The Falkland Islands had a British colonial government and was included on the C-24 list as a non-self-governing territory because it was subject to colonial government and thus non-self-governing

I appreciate their are differing views on this; I have heard many arguments but I am convinced by the freely expressed choice of the Falkland Islanders whose home is the Falkland Islands

In the past I have made argument in favor of the people who live in the Falkland Islands and also the British position, largely influenced by the paper of Pascoe and Pepper, which seems to cite firm evidence from national archives. I know their paper has its critics, but I do not see evidence to refute or modify the conclusions they draw from their research and their point of view, to which of course their argument is biased. However, the argument has been debated many times and posters have formed their views. I'm open to new thought and argument, but arguments are so entrenched there appears little new to the debate

I don't know how the sovereignty issue can be resolved but if it is to be resolved I am also convinced it should be through finding common ground where possible and finding ways to build confidence between sides so that all stakeholders can resolve matters in a spirit of friendship and cooperation.

Détente and cordial relations should over time allow people to reconsider and perhaps find a resolution they all agree on; it'd would be preferable to exercise the organs of the UN, such as the ICJ to assist or decide matters if all could agree. At the moment, those options appear blocked, but perhaps avenues could be found if people set out to find them?

its all about oil,
the greed of argentina,
you will never solve this problem as long as argentina keep up the blockade and keep threatening and abusing the falkland islanders,

no country has a right to insult threaten and abuse others,
then expect them to come under your control.

if you belive anythingf else you may well be a fool, like the argie bloggers, if britain did to argentina,,what argentina is doing to the falklands , we would be condemmed, would we not,
the falklands WILL remain british, as long as the islanders freely wish to , end off .

Jon-Boy, what you don't appear to understand is that if you had appeared on this site using your own name and had taken the side of the Falklanders your blog would have been well and truly trashed by the lunatic RG fringe by now and they would be actively stalking you across cyberspace for the rest of your days. That is why people have learnt not to give out details here. Do you think that Think, Martin Fierro, Mervin This and Malvin That are real names?

Frank is my real name, no need for more information....

pity about the cod.....

It is not surprising to see the British Government bullying another sovereign state once more. This colonial power is not going to learn and still is going all over the world intimidating and threatening sovereign nations. The Icelandic public just experienced their coercion and intimidation in the ICESAVE issue where the British Government and another colonial power, the Dutch, went through great lengths in forcing a slave contract over the Icelandic population for ICESAVE with no legal grounds, while lying to the world we somehow were liable for a private bank operating on British and Dutch soil with the permission of the British and Dutch Governments and under their supervision. The Argentinian President certainly shows personality in standing firmly against this predator.

Hello, Jonah has a friend from Iceland ... this is just getting better and better.

Jonah still not come to terms with the workings of the UN I see, 1514 not applicable to the Falkland Islands or the Rock ... wonderful, such a berk :-))

The Icesave case is going to court .... as there appears to be no other way to settle the matter that would seem the right thing to do. And it's not just the UK taking Iceland to court, Holland is too. The EU thinks there is a case so now it's up to the courts. Will take a while, these courts don't move swiftly. The result will become apparent in time. The UK could, in the meantime, object to Iceland's attempt to join the EU proper. We have not done so ........ hardly the act of a bully!

The Argentine President tends to show more botox that personality !

Morning all. Another bright, warm morning. Falkland islands still British? Wonderful. One day maybe they be independent, but not today. Can't remember many threads going for this long. Not much news about I suppose :-)

Above I was not taking a stand with the Argentine Government against Falkland Islands, just to avoid a misunderstanding. I was simply taking on the issue of the aggression and intimidation of the British colonial power. I don´t know enough about the history of Argentina versus Falkland Islands to judge.

ICESAVE is going to court, yes, that has nothing to do with what I said aout the coercion and intimidation of the 2 colonial powers. So why did they use force and intimidate in the firts place? Yes, this is their STYLE. They never wanted to take the matter to the courts and still have not.

“ ... ICESAVE is going to court, yes, that ....... They never wanted to take the matter to the courts and still have not.....”

You appear to be contradicting yourself. In any case, it would seem that the court is already considering the preliminaries of the case!

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/10/uk-iceland-referendum-idUKTRE7377W720110410

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/10/uk-iceland-referendum-idUKTRE7377W720110410

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/04/10/uk-iceland-referendum-idUKTRE7377W720110410

NO, I am not contradicting myself at all. The 2 colonial powers never wanted ICESAVE in front of a judge since there is no law saying the Icelandic public or the Icelandic state are liable for ICESAVE. Instead, they lied and illegally intended to force a slave-contract over the public of Iceland. THEY should be taken to court for using illegal force and be judged to pay heavy damages to Iceland.

411 Ericsson,
“It is not surprising to see the British Government bullying another sovereign state once more. This colonial power is not going to learn and still is going all over the world intimidating and threatening sovereign nations”
“The Argentinian President certainly shows personality in standing firmly against this predator”

Well said and takk fyrir.

Thank you too, Marcos Alejandro. Our President stood against the devil too. The Icelandic public went through a long time of hell due to the British predator. Time to stop them.

To Mr. Ericcson

Truthfull. concise and to the point.........

Vi takker

417 Ericsson, People around the world support Iceland against the financial blackmail of the British, this old empire is going down the drain.

So, why is it going to court then? Why do two sovereign nations think there is a case? Why does the EU think that there is a case?

We may not have wanted the matter to go to court ... who ever does (ask Argentina). But as Iceland rejected all the deals offered it seems that to court it must go.

I shall watch with interest.

Do not ask me why ICESAVE is going to court. However the 2 COLONIAL POWERS and the EU are not taking ICELAND to court. No, instead they use political pressure within the EEA. What you said above and I forgot to answer the last time: >The UK could, in the meantime, object to Iceland's attempt to join the EU< only shows clearly the political pressure the British Government uses for it´s own gain within organizations of the world, the EEA (European Economic Area), the EU (European Union), the IMF (the Interantional Monetary Fund) included. AND FOR YOUR INFORMATION: The vast majority of the Icelandic voters have NO INTENTION of ever joining the EU. This is a private matter of one political party of Iceland which has weakened our defences against the EU (including the British and Dutch)- and ICESAVE coercion. I was glad to see what you said, Marcos Alejandro and Think.

“ ... Do not ask me why ICESAVE is going to court. However the 2 COLONIAL POWERS and the EU are not taking ICELAND to court....”

So if neither the UK nor Holland are taking Iceland to court ..... who is?

Thanks,Mr Ericson,for the concise and informative writtings.Yes,the brit bully,eventually they will stop,hard.So may be then,they will learn the lesson,to mind their own bussiness.
Regards!

“ ... Dick Sawle and I have recently been away to attend the Committee of 24 in New York. And I must say that the very brief time that Dick Sawle and I were in the United States and myself, I carried on to Canada, that time was incredibly well spent. We were able to correct many of the miss-construed ideas that people have about the Falkland Islands. And in Canada, in Ottawa, I actually sat in front of the majority of the Foreign Affairs Committee and was grilled for about an hour and a quarter and it was absolutely amazing the response we got from both the USA and from Canada. And I would encourage that this type of visit is not only continued but it is extended so that we have more time to speak to the individuals concerned.....”

http://www.falklandnews.com/public/story.cfm?get=6019&source=3

SiEsterWhoIsNowMarvin - the British have business EVERYWHERE :-)

Did you read what I said above or do you only want to argue and defend the colonial powers? EFTA (the European Free Trade Association of the EEA) is saying they will. Obvious political pressure from the EU and the British and Dutch Governments. What are they going to use except force when no law says the Icelandic public or the Icelandic state owe ICESAVE? What court will go against the law? Yet the EEA court, EFTA, has no jurisdiction over Iceland.

EFTA has a Convention and a Convention is usually a Treaty in International Law. That being the case, any breach of the Convention by one of the signatories can be seen as a breach of international law. Iceland is a signatory to that Treaty.

Now, has EFTA picked this ball up because it read about the dispute in the newspapers? Or has it received a complaint from the UK or Holland or both?
The term 'political pressure' is a little vague.

Article 43 of the Convention places a responsibility on the governing Council ” ... (h) to endeavour to resolve disputes that may arise regarding the interpretation or application of this Convention ...“. So pressure of whatever hue is not required as the Council has this responsibility.

What conclusions they may come to we will have to see, however I note that ” ... The EFTA Surveillance Authority, a European trade body overseeing Iceland's cooperation with the European Union, warned Iceland in May 2010 it should pay up or face possible court proceedings ...”.

Somebody appears to think that a law has indeed been broken !

SiEsterWhoIsNowMarvin - the British have business EVERYWHERE :-)
Sure,lady bug,except uk and the Malvinas,are LOOSING everytime at the UN.
Not only that,but each year,the UN resolution are getting more and more in favor of Argentina

The UN Special Committee on Decolonisation also adopted a resolution on 21st June calling for a negotiated settlement over sovereignty. The Committee made the strange statement that it recognised the ““special and particular colonial situation” in the Falklands.
“The representative from Bolivia took this to mean, disturbingly, that “The right to self-determination could not be applied to that case.” Other representatives from Latin American nations lined up to give their full support to Argentina’s “unquestionable” position. Dick Sawle and Roger Edwards, elected members of the Falkland Islands Legislative Assembly, reiterated the wish of the population for the islands to remain British. This had no impact on the delegates who lined up to condemn British ‘colonialism’ in ‘our Americas’. The only country to offer any support for the UK or the Islanders themselves was – perhaps appropriately – Sierra Leone, whose representative said that “the principle of self-determination was a prime factor in any consideration of the question of the Falkland Islands” and that “Any attempt to resolve the issue without taking into full account the wishes of the islanders would be inconsistent with the United Nations Charter and relevant Assembly resolutions.” xxiv”
So edward is IMPLORING NOT TO ADOPT the draft resolution”
The only country to support uk,was Sierra Leone...Pathetic,really patethic.
Moreover,no body gives a damn,in the world about uk: IT IS BANKRUPT!!
Whos wants to deal with them???
Smart up,lady bug!
The EMPIRE IS OVER!!!
http://www.eurasiareview.com/the-return-of-the-falklands-fight-analysis-15072011/

First af all, thank you Malvinero1.
You say, Redhoyt: >Now, has EFTA picked this ball up because it read about the dispute in the newspapers? Or has it received a complaint from the UK or Holland or both?
The term 'political pressure' is a little vague.<
Please don´t expect the ordinary person to have the answer for corruption and intimidation. Líke I said, no law states the Icelandic state owes ICESAVE and there was never a state guarantee for ICESAVE, operated by a private bank on a foreign soil. Like I said there is political pressure by the EU and the 2 colonial powers. In other words: ICESAVE is not our obligation towards the 2 European Governments. The political pressure is towards ESA (the European Surveillance Authority), not EFTA (the European Free Trade Association of the EEA) as I mistakenly wrote above. The political pressure is NOT VAGUE, but very clear. In additon the EFTA court has no jurisdiction over Iceland. Will the EFTA court find the Icelandic Government to be in violation of the EEA (European Economic Area) contract, it will NOT be over any state guarantee for ICESAVE.

Ms. Ericsson is entirely right that the UK and the Netherlands have not dared to take Iceland to court, and I agree with her: We should take Britain to court for what was done to us, applying anti-terrorist law against us with severe consequences.

The EFTA Surveillance Authority (ESA) have had their complaints, and may try to take the matter to court, but they have eventually met with a combined opposition of the entire Parliament of Iceland, and the EFTA court has no authority to judge the Republic of Iceland to pay to the UK and NL a single penny or euro cent.

Sorry for the haste in my last entry (402), making the UN SC something else: “US CC”! etc.

Maybe my ideas about Britain's reasons to retain the Malvinas under their rule are not all to the point, whereas I am in no doubt – having followed the events in 1982 – that the Thatcher government's motives were to create enough national euphoria, with chauvinistic and jingoistic rhetoric, so that their own likelihood of losing the next elections could be averted, and their victory ensured.

This was a daring, ingenious plan which apparently “paid” well for the Conservative Party – winning a 144 seats' majority (42.3% of the votes) in June 1983 – yet not for those 907 who lost their lives.

Please use my screen name only, Jon, thank you.

Iceland should take the UK to court! Argentina should take the UK to court! But no-one IS taking the UK to court. Why? Lack of a case by the look of it. At least with the Icesave thing time will tell. And we will see what happens.

Now I'm glad you've raised the UN and its various Resolutions.

As is well known United Nations General Assembly can issue Resolutions which are advisrory in nature.

No legal force whatsoever.

Any of the lesser bodies at the UN, for example the sub-committee's of sub-committees carry no weight whatsoever. This is particularly so in the case of the much discredited C-24. They submit Draft Resolutions to the Fourth Committee which can, if it wishes, pass them on to the UN General Assembly.

And of course there has been no UN GA Resolution on the subject of the Falkland islands since the UK and Argentina resumed diplomatic ties in 1989. I find that interesting .... UN GA Resolutions 1982 - 1988 then .... nothing. Diplomatic ties resumed but the UN didn't follow up the next year. Was the restoration of diplomatic ties ALL that they were seeking? Isn't it strange?

So SiEsterCumMarvin01 - the support you claims is irrelevant. Advisory at best, and totally ignorable. What you want is to get the UNSC involved! But that will be hard won't it? After all there is quite a long list of sovereignty disputes, and yours may not be top of the queue.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_territorial_disputes

Still, you can always take the UK to court :-))

Jonah - the election was over a year after the victory .... and a year is a very long time in politics. Your opinion of Mrs. Thatchers reasoning is pointless and can just as well be applied to the Argentine dictatorship. Irrelevant. It is the here and now that matters.

Take a good hard look at what is happening with Gibraltar, for there you see the future of the Falkland Islands. They are even now dealing with 'foreign relations', leaving just defence to the UK. Independent in all but name :-)

424 Rotted
About the link you posted you missed this part:
Roger Edwards
“My visit to Canada certainly was one day  or a very brief day of meetings but it involved about 3 nights in the air travelling to and from”
Who did they meet with in such a short period of time? They never mentioned any names.
I am sure they got the support of the hotel's bell boy who didn't have a clue who those British clowns were.

Let me add, for the sake of clarity as to my last entry (429), that this is how things appeared to me and many others in 1982–1983, and still to me.

Miss Departmental Redhoyt, did you realize: “Obama Administration Backs Argentina Over U.K. on Falkland Dispute” (10 June 2011) =
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/obama-administration-backs-argentina-over-uk-on-falkland-dispute/#ixzz1SZ3weMnP
And now you can grab your head & tear your hair asking: Why on earth??!!

Read this there: “the U.S. implicitly backed an OAS document calling for talks last June and again Tuesday at a conference in El Salvador. The latest declaration, which refers to the islands as the Malvinas Islands, calls for exploring ”all possible avenues towards a peaceful settlement of the dispute“ and resuming sovereignty negotiations ”as soon as possible.“

It was accompanied by some tough words toward Britain. In an OAS press release, Argentine foreign minister Hector Timerman said: ”Unfortunately, Britain still declines to resume bilateral dialogue, in violation not only of repeated resolutions of the United Nations and this Organization.“ Timerman called for a ”peaceful settlement to the dispute.“” (End of quote.)

Whatever your state of mind may be, Redhoyt, the sovereignty of the said islands is certainly not indisputable or beyond doubt.

PS. And you know the Falklands war changed the winds in the UK.

So SiEsterCumMarvin01 - the support you claims is irrelevantLADY BUG: GO TO HELL:YOU ARE AN IDIOT!!!!!
No wonder you are in westminster...I-D-I-O-T!!!!

The wind in the UK certainly did change Jonah ... now we've had our people fight and die for the islands. That REALLY was a game changer.

As for Obama, he says one thing and does another. He'll be around for 5 more years at worst, maybe rather less. Check out the US State Department's web site, the best that Argentina's spurious claim can get is a footnote!

http://www.state.gov/s/inr/rls/10543.htm

The Falkland Islands are listed as a non-self governing territory for the purposes of the UN Charter, and Articles 73 and 74 in particular. The UK is meeting is duty towards the islands. This is a legal obligation. Argentina on the other hand has failed to meet its legal obligations under the same multilateral Treaty. But then Argentina has something of a reputation for ignoring Treaty obligations.

The OAS, Mercosur, etc, etc are just a collection of old boys clubs enabling business class travel and expense accounts for its members. All irrelevant. And the good old US of A has its own colonial problems - Guam, American Samoa etc. Maybe even Hawaii, which President Clinton apologised for 'stealing' in an address in 1993.

The US pays no more attention to the C-24 than Britain does.

You are also way behind on this site ... all been done and proclaimed before .... hair tearing ? Well I have a full head so it's entirely possible. But not today I think :-)

MoreCrap - and you've missed out the bit where the proposal was for the FIG to get out and do more of it. The truth is getting out slowly ...... nothing Argentina can do :-))

And don't miss this, Miss Red Hoyt, from the same news I gave you:

“The Obama administration made clear in early 2010 that it would endorse calls for talks over the islands. At a Buenos Aires news conference with Argentina's president in March 2010, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said she agreed with Argentina that the two nations should ”sit down and resolve the issues between them.“”