MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
For Argentina Falklands/Malvinas sovereignty legitimacy conditions any other negotiation
Argentina is not going to make things easy for Britain in the Falkland Islands and the first discussion, before any other issues are addressed, must be the legitimacy of the Malvinas Islands sovereignty, said Argentine Defence Minister Arturo Puricelli in a Sunday interview by Carolina Barrios published in the Buenos Aires Herald. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rules” ... Puricelli said Argentina has geographical, historical, political and legal arguments placing Malvinas, Georgia and Sandwich Islands and the adjoining waters “unquestionably under Argentine sovereignty...”.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 04:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'd love to hear the argument for South Georgia and the SSI's ! Under the joke Treaty of Tordesillas they belonged to Portugal. Perhaps Brazil is now the owner under the equally laughable Uti Possidetis Juris :-)
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
“It was Britain which interrupted those conversations and exchange of information — they did not do their bit”
Argentina had a tantrum and withdrew, but it was the British who didn't do their bit! Wonderful ... such rubbish! Such - politics, such lies!
“We want the United Kingdom to review its position, sit down to negotiate and stop militarizing the South Atlantic”
What you want and what you get are likely to be two very different things! Although we have reviewed our position and - WE HAVE NO DOUBT ABOUT OUR SOVEREIGNTY (for emphasis, sorry to shout :-)
But this is the fun bit -
” ... we share in, for example, bodies like the United Nations — that is exactly where we should be taking these issues”
But Argentina can't! There's a deal, remember? The C-24 is all you get, and that won't get you anywhere.
Seems to me that the British have got some kind of arm lock over Argentina dating back to 1989/90. Whatever was agreed it blocks discussion at the UN. Argentina doesn't appear to be able to break that, although its proven so good at breaking other deals. But what is the deal that was struck in 89/90. The details are elusive !!
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
Apparently this muppet indicated Argentina has a legal claim! I have yet to see any legal argument constructed and more importantly presented as a legal case to a court with jurisdiction to rule on such matters.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:07 am - Link - Report abuse 0Mmmm, Argentine defense minister. That sounds like the easiest job in the world. Argentina is not military threatened by any other nation and he does not exactly have a significant armed force to manage, or a large budget to account for.
Beef, it's like being given the Arts and Culture portfolio in the UK...
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0If they really do have a legal argument, then why not take it to the ICJ?
Do you really wait for posters to comment from Argentina vainly ?
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0We can't confide anything about Falklands to you .. can we .?
There is NOTHING to negotiate.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well certainly not until they remove the outcome of the “negotiations” from their constitution...
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0I guess it's just that part of the political cycle where Defense Ministers make political pronouncements to show their prowess.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0This man has so few shots in his locker that you must forgive him for firing blanks to make a bit of noise.
Nothing like a good article to chuckle over on a Monday morning.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0The only people that believe the Falklanders are under a British military occupation are the Argentines - and let's face it - they don't really believe that either.
“Ms Barros then asks the minister if this means that unless there are advances in the sovereignty issue, it will not be possible to broach other issues such as fisheries, something achieved in the 90s but now interrupted?”
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0“It was Britain which interrupted those conversations and exchange of information — they did not do their bit” said Puricelli.
Complete lie. Not only was it the Argentine Govt who caused the cessation of co-operative management of the SWA by demanding the issue of sovereignty was placed on the agenda of the Joint Fisheries Commission, but they also ceased exchange of data. As a matter of fact (not opinion) the Falkland Islands still provides fisheries data. Does Sr Puricelli not know that (bit of an omission) or is he content to gratuitously lie ?
Oh and by the way, is he about to invade French Guayana (French soverign territory) and oust them from the continent ?
This doesn't make me chuckle. It's full of lies and distortions, and there are plenty of fools out there who will believe it.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falkland Islanders remain very happy to share their fisheries expertise with no conditions attached.
And we weren't isolated from the rest of South America until the Argentines made us that way. Actually, we still aren't isolated, despite their best efforts.
Most of all, we absolutely will not be bullied into submission.
” ..Puricelli said Argentina has geographical, historical, political and legal arguments placing Malvinas, Georgia and Sandwich Islands and the adjoining waters “unquestionably under Argentine sovereignty..”.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 01:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyone care to explain Argentina's rights to South georgia and the South Sandwich Islands ??
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/
People give Mr Puricelli a break, he is a nice guy, a lot better than the ex “ Montonera” Garre (by the way, her personal income went up 34% since she is government). As a Defense Minister with NO Armed Forces what is he gonna talk about? Allow the guy to grab some spotlight, 5 minutes of fame and poss for the camera for at least a moment. Shame on you people ! :-))))))))))))))))))
Aug 08th, 2011 - 01:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I think we must view this as part of the Kirchner presidential campaign. And I think we can confidently expect more “ministerial” statements.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Blueprint:
Blah blah British occupation blah blah blah. Blah Malvinas sovereignty blah blah blah blah. South Georgia, South Sandwich Island, Malvinas blah blah Argentine sovereignty blah blah. Latin American countries blah blah blah South America blah blah Unasur blah.
The bit that's really funny is his assertion that Britain and Argentina have many values in common. In fact we don't. Britain is nowhere near as addicted to lying as Argentina. It's difficult to point at the occasions in the 20th and 21st centuries where Britain has invaded or thought about invading another country simply to steal it. Britain believes in international law whilst Argentina only believes in the bits that suit them. Argentina is a third-rate country, possibly. It's just possible that in another two or three hundred years, Argentina might manage to drag itself up to Britain's level. Where are the similarities?
“It's just possible that in another two or three hundred years, Argentina might manage to drag itself up to Britain's level.”
Aug 08th, 2011 - 02:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Considering the relative rates of decline over the same period, Argentina from 4th richest to 27th richest while at the same time the UK went from 1st richest to 6th richest, I think we all know that Argentina is unlikely to ever drag itself up to Britain's level... although it is just possible, if Argentina treads water for long enough that Britain might, and it's an outside possibility, sink to Argentina's level.
12 Artillero601
Aug 08th, 2011 - 04:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Are you trying to sound like Mother Teresa of Calcutta?
You are not fooling anyone, you were a member of the same army that killed tens of thousands in Argentina, started the war in Malvinas and invaded Panama when you became a mercenary/profitmaker.
@15
Aug 08th, 2011 - 05:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Batman = “Think”
Robin = Marcos Alejandro
Lack of originality Marcos, you repeat what your “idol” Think says, can you make your own conclusions about issues ? why do you have to copy Think all the time?
All I said was that Mr Puricelli was a nice guy. The K propaganda is irrelevant at this point, among 150% of your comments in this forum ..... :-))
The only statement made by Puricelli that is actually true is Britain not supplying the fisheries data. It is the Falklands that supplies the fisheries data, it has nothing to do with Britain. The rest of his statements are laughable, and are only for the Argentine public to consume and provide further support to a corrupt regime that is bordering on a disctaorship.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0If they have so many problems with Western powers administering power in Latin America, why arent they giving France grief over French Guiana? French Guiana is an actual colony! Argentines are full of double standards and twisted logic.
To all of you commenting about the Fisheries agreement that the UK broke…..
Aug 08th, 2011 - 05:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Here is what YOUR OWN government says about the issue:
”1.3 Fisheries issues
……….The catalyst for the renewed Argentinean sovereignty campaign was believed to have arisen as a result of the Falklands decision in 2005 to grant fishing concessions around the Islands over a 25-year period, rather than by annual renewal.
The new system came into effect in July 2006, in spite of protests from the Argentinean Government that Britain had no right to award fishing rights over what it deemed to be disputed waters. *5
*5 The Guardian reported on 27 September 2006 that the foreign affairs committee of the lower house of the Argentinean congress was reported to be drafting a bill that would refuse to recognise the 25-year fishing permits issued by the Falklands Government. ”
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05602.pdf
Please inform yourselves before commenting…..
Ushuaia, the capital of Tierra del Fuego, Antarctica and South Atlantic Islands (include Malvinas) Province.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 05:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In your dreams Nitrojuan.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 06:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Stanley, the capital of the Falkland Islands, that's the reality. Get used to it.
@18. It wasn't this issue that caused the SAFC to cease, it was that Argentina insisted on having sovereignty on the agenda of a scientific meeting, and refused to attend meetings if it was not.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Please inform yourself before commenting.........
PS Argentina described the ITQ system as irresponsible management. Some years later they are attempting to introduce the same scheme; where we lead others will eventually follow.......
(21)
Aug 08th, 2011 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I present the Official Briefings of the British Parliament to prove my point….
www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/SN05602.pdf
What do you present?
Just a personal opinion….
What a Turnip!
16 Artillero601
Aug 08th, 2011 - 06:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talk all you want in far away Tejas, meanwhile in Argentina, justice is taking care of many like you every month.
“Life sentences given in Argentine torture trial”
“Two former military officers were convicted Thursday of murder, kidnapping and torture at one of the most notorious prisons run by Argentina's former dictatorship. Both got life sentences for crimes against humanity”
http://news.yahoo.com/life-sentences-given-argentine-torture-trial-212939395.html
18 Think
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you remind us all which 'fisheries agreement' the UK broke?
And I think the last joint research cruise was well before 2005...2002, perhaps? Anyway, it wasn't us that pulled out.
Why don't you tell us all, while you're at it, what happened to stocks of southern blue whiting after the last joint cruise and acoustic sounding of fish stocks?
I think we've been through all this before, and arrived at a point where you admitted that you would cheerfully rob your own grannies if it advanced your soverignty ambitions, and trashing the joint fish stocks was all part of the big plan. So why not do us all a favour and drop the sanctimonious bs?
(24) Monty96
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“Why don't you remind us all which 'fisheries agreement' the UK broke?”
I say:
The agreement about the “Annual Renewal of Fishing Licenses” that your “Squidocrats” swiftly and unilaterally converted into “25-year period fishing concessions”
Curiously, those “25-year period fishing concessions” were otorgued to themselves, their friends and associates.
But of course, as we know, you are “all friends” in little Malvinas... Aren't you?
Please inform yourselves before commenting
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:28 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Falklands are British,
The argentine illegally invaded them
Argentina has no rights over them
This is just jingoism because its election time,
He was talking in front of the mirror
As no one listens to him,
mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
@23
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Texas, not Tejas (it doesn't belong to Mexico anymore, Gen Houston, Gen Santa Ana, The ALAMO??) those names sound familiar to you?
25 Think
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I didn't know that we or the UK had signed any agreement with Argentina specifying 'Annual renewal of fishing licenses'. I'm not saying there wasn't one, only that I never heard of it! The UK tends to regard the management of the fishery as a matter for FIG, so you'll forgive me if I'm surprised.
When was this signed?
JOINT STATEMENT OF 28 NOVEMBER 1990
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ESTABLISHING THE SOUTH ATLANTIC FISHERIES COMMISSION
http://www.falklands.info/history/90fish.html
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
AGREEMENT OF 14th JULY 1999
http://www.falklands.info/history/99comm.html
that’s all I can find,
unless he is talking about something else .
..
(28) Monty96
Aug 08th, 2011 - 07:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You didn't know?
Well....... Now you know!
You are surprised?
How comes?
I think we've been through all this before, and arrived at a point where you admitted that the FIG(leaf) is just that; a figleaf to cover the UK.
Funny thing, but from where I stand (which is smack dab in the middle of STANLEY), I dont see no occupying forces, they were kicked out on 14 June 1982 and replaced with the very welcome BRITISH FORCES, Long may this happy state of affairs continue..
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] - 31
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0are you taxed to London (UK) ?
30 Think
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What do you mean 'Now you know'? You haven't answered the question.
I can't find anything in the '99 agreement or the '96 joint declaration that says anything about annual licenses.
And I never admitted any such thing. Your just as shameless a liar as your greasy politician.
This is going to be the endless dilemma is it going to end as Walküre (The Valkyrie operation) or as Von Clausewitz predicted...??
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There must be someone with common sense out there! (particularly in Argentina)
25 its true.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:36 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the squidocrats began to give 25 years period fishing concessions by a law they aprobed in 2003.(when it is common to do it for 1 year)
they duplicated the quantity of companies from 8 to 16, overfishing anywhere???
and this companies are from Malvinas and operates in conjuntion with companies of other countries
www1.rionegro.com.ar/diario/tools/imprimir.php?id=6017
very interesting
35 malen
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You haven't got a clue what you are talking about.
The 25 year fishing concessions came in in 2005.
The number of companies is totally irrelevant. It's the total catch that matters. And we do actually know what that is and manage the fishery responsibly.
Overfishing anywhere? Er....yes, in Argentine waters and on the high seas. And until your government stops requiring talks on sovereignty before co-operation on fishing, that's the way it will stay.
@33
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your just as shameless a liar as your greasy politician........ Honeymoon over? between you and “El Think”? It didn't take long ... :-(
1.3 fisheries issues
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fishing rights in the waters surrounding the Falkland Islands has caused tensions between
The UK. Argentina and the Falkland Islands governments.
The catalyst for the renewed argentine sovereignty campaign was believed to have arisen as a result of the Falklands decision in 2005 to grant fishing concessions around the islands over a 25-year period
Rather than by annual renewal. The new system came into effect in July 2006 in spite of protests from the Argentina government , that Britain had no rights to award fishing rights over what Argentina deemed to be disputed waters.
In addition, other groups believed that over-fishing in these waters would devastate the SQUID population and they accused the two governments of using the squid as a sovereignty tool in the dispute over the Falklands.
Catches of IIIex squid have fallen dramatically since 2001,
In early 2006 Argentina impounded a British fishing boat the john cheek,
Which the argentine authorities claimed had been fishing illegally in the argentine exclusion area
The British embassy maintained the boat was in neutral waters
The argentine chamber of fishing industries [acfi]
Called for strong penalties to be imposed.
The ship and its catch was detained, and after the British government had paid an administrative fine, the boat was released.
In early 2007 the argentine government insisted that any discussions on fishing or conservation HAD to include talks on SOVEREINTY [I.E. TRANSFER OF SOVEREINTY TO ARGENTINA ]
And in march 2007 Argentina withdrew from the 1995 Anglo-argentine joint declaration on co-operation over offshore activities in the south west Atlantic.
In 2008 the argentine government introduced legislation designed to penalise fishing companies operating in both argentine and FALKLAND WATERS.
[This is the 1.3 fisheries issues]..
[]- 33
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0attention !...the timing of the comment(29) = comment(30)
....07:51 pm
@39
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0y mi abuela patea calefones???
39 geo
Aug 08th, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0your getting sloppy in your old age.
so i posted at the same time as think,
merco puts it up
silly boy
the time now is uk 21.54pm
[] 32
Aug 08th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Taxi's dont run from Stanley to London, too much water along the road
two men were arrested yesterday
Aug 08th, 2011 - 09:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0one was drinking battery acis, and the other had stolen some fireworks
the police charged one,,,,and let the other one off ???
[] - 40
Aug 08th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0let's wish (El Think)%his all other names will be vaporized !
[]- 41
07:51 timings are same...El Think(Es Ding) READ YOUR COMMENT
(~ 1 or 2 minutes) ..he'll think (~1 minute)..he 'll write (~2 minutes )
he can write his comment at least 4/5 minutes after you !!
[] - 42
you know , (tax )and (taxi)are not concepts ! don't you ..
[] 44
Aug 08th, 2011 - 09:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh, sorry I thought you were asking about Taxis. So what do I pay my taxes to London, is that the question?? No I do not, I pay my taxes to the Falkland Islands Government. I don't live in England, so why would I pay taxes there.
wow, it's been a while since the last time I made a comment :) and what I see people? What I seeee! Crap, the same old crap, as usual. Now We are also the owners of not only Malvinas, but Georgia and sandwich islands too haha when's Australia and Aotearoas's turn? lol
Aug 08th, 2011 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@ 23 are the sons of Hebe Pastore (ex de Bonafini) alive? no? are they dead? yes they are, well then, everything's fine:)
Stay tuned if you're looking for fun, Cristina is esentially destroying this country and you'll see amazing things happening to this country in the near future.
@ 39 geo, you should change your translator, it sucks!
[] - 45
Aug 08th, 2011 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You know 1790 ' s years...
the Americans didn't pay tax to UK....became full independent !
We are independant, in pretty much all except defence, and that is only because of some trouble making idiots who have no concept of democracy, self determination, or when to shut up and sort out the crap in their own backyard.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] - 46
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Fred ..what did made you ruffle ( confused)..my timing determination ?
--------------
[] - 48
sorry, i thought you are the colony of UK ! ...don't care !
[] 49
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Clearly, you would not know what a colony was if it bit you on the arse.
we dont care about you geo,
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mars has a few vacances
@ 49 No, but my auntie is a gusher, she did that once and I saw it all. Word!
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0GOTCHA
Aug 08th, 2011 - 10:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your really the dragon aren’t you,
And you have taken George prisoner and taken his place,
You a very naughty dragon , wash your mouth out with water,
And release the real George
Release the real George ???
@ 53 If someone releases his real George, we will have to leave this room because of his odor. I sometimes release some real George and people around me find it disgusting.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It seems comical a country trying to maintain control of islands 10000 kms away when its capital city is it appears on the verge of a social collapse.London is tonight more violent than Beirut,Mexico City,Bogota,Rio,any place on the planet you care to mention as the recession really begins to bite right in the heart of GB.The question has to be asked is it safe to have the Olimpic games in such a violent place?
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is England a safe country for tourists? That is the question.
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0this is just criminals,
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the police and TV are saying, that it is being coodinated on line,
as sad as it is, these younsters have no respect,
this is apalling.How can the Olimpics be allowed to continue in such a place that is obviously on the verge of social collapse.The IOC will have to act very quickly to protect the athletes projected to go to London in 2012
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0#56
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Welcome back brother !! :-))))
58 O gara dont be so stupid
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0if it can happen in the home of democracy then it can happen anywhere,
and besides, has their not been riots in the US and GREECE and SPAIN
and how many of these countries have held the olympics
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
at least be honest rather than racist and anti british all the time,
you need a rest old boy,
Spain has had peaceful protest but nothing like, the scenes being witnessed in London.Even Greece has seen nothing as bad as this.The mob is out of control with the authorities apparently helpless
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well im not going to defend whats happening if thats what you are after,
Aug 08th, 2011 - 11:58 pm - Link - Report abuse 0it is a disgrace, and in this day and age, when million have nothing to eat, the world is in turmoil, unrest and civil wars all over the place
and these ungratfull bastards are rioting-stealing-robbing-and frightening the old-and innocent- they have no respect, and are condemmed, this has nothing to do with welfare or ecconomics or anything else, just pure criminality, and should be very harshly punnished, thats my opinion.,
This time I am not trying to provoke you into anything.The reality is the situation in Western Europe and North America is heading towards a situation of very dangerous levels as the welfare state is heading toward complete collapse.You have disagreed with me here as I have said European countries are deludeing themselves about maintaining this as globalization bites more and more in those countries such as Ireland and Britain who are unable to compete.What have I to celebrate BEING RIGHT thats a great consolation!!!!!!
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0but your not right are you,
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0you cannot blame what happening in the world, with these rioters,
i understand your meaning and where your comming from,
but as i live not far from this, i can assure you it has nothing to do with the eccomimy, these youngsters are smashing and stealing evertything
thugs robbing and the like, i hope the police and the courts make them pay, but i doubt it, the world is changing, and to many do gooders,
but we will see in the morning the full damadge they have done,
@ 59 hooooooolaaaas amigos! cómo va todo che? estuve perdido por un tiempo jeje, gracias por la bienvenida, veo que hay que poner orden acá loco jaja, declararon gobernadora de jujuy a milagro sala, es un bolonqui argentina
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0the world must protect the athletes, briton, the IOC will decide what's best for athletes. Let it be!
(33) Monty96
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0You refer to my comment No.30:
***”I think we've been through all this before, and arrived at a point where you admitted that the FIG(leaf) is just that; a figleaf to cover the UK.”***
And, very offended answer:
”…… I never admitted any such thing. Your just as shameless a liar as your greasy politician.”
I say:
Have a look at your own comment No. 24 in which you write:
*** “I think we've been through all this before, and arrived at a point where you admitted that you would cheerfully rob your own grannies if it advanced your soverignty ambitions.”***
I, very offended :-) answer:
I never admitted any such thing. Your just as shameless a liar as your greasy politicians.
Do you get the ”point” now?
well its late here and getting niosy,
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0im of to bed,
back in the morning
if were still in one piece,
night all
Briton How can you be sure I am wrong how are thse people able to riot in daytime.Obviously they have no work.Its not only youngsters thousands are now takeing part.British society is in serious trouble i dont deny do gooders with their multi cultural claptrap are largely to blame but wasteing money on foreign adventures which is desperastely needed at home is comeing home to roost in UK,US and soon in France
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0@ 67 briton, for your own good, close your doors and windows, dress up like a granny, that will grant you the favour of saving your *rse when those riotters enter your house to steal, rape and murder aaaaaaaaaaaah!!!
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:29 am - Link - Report abuse 066 Think
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0I get the point.
I still think you said that wrecking the South Atlantic fishery was acceptable to you in the pursuit of your political goals. I'll find it if you really want me to. (OK maybe you didn't actually say robbing grannies was alright, unless of course some of your fishing boat owners are in fact grandmothers as well)
And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.
#55 - O'GaGa - happens every 25 years or so. I remember the last ones well enough. It die out and then the communities will find that they are the one's that the rioters have been damging the most. I never thought the Olympics were a good idea anyway. As for geography - it's irrelevant!
Aug 09th, 2011 - 12:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0#58 - another drama queen !
Check out history O'GaGa - this is just letting off steam. I've got the T shirt from the last time.
And the lad will be enjoying the overtime :-)
@65
Aug 09th, 2011 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0Todo bien y vos?? El Jefe del GAM5 de Jujuy es compañero mio y me conto el gran quilombo que hay en la provincia , que desastre !!
A Mexican will say: Vete a la chingada pendejo, viva Tejas cabron y viva Mexico!
Aug 09th, 2011 - 03:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0How interesting, the dumber you are the furthest they send you Teniente Coronel Ariel Guzman to Jujuy EAM to Tejas.
Bueno, primero y principal no todo el mundo puede ser Jefe de Unidad y el gordo Guzman es un excelente oficial y como persona es de primera.... y yo a Texas me vine solo cabron !! :-))
Aug 09th, 2011 - 01:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0well done to you !
Aug 09th, 2011 - 02:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0you must be careful like after comment # 50 at this page
under your different named comments ' GMT timings..
otherwise,anyone could wake up on how you use few computers
simultaneously.....
If people are wondering why this criminality is happening during the daytime, it is simple. The majority are kids and it is the school holidays here. Presumably their parent(s) are working.
Aug 09th, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This has absolutely nothing to do with economic deprivation. The looters are well-fed and well-dressed. These are not food riots by hungry people, is is pure greed and a chance to steal electronic good and new trainers.
[]- Elaine
Aug 09th, 2011 - 06:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0be calm please !..if you read your comment again,you'll see that
your comment relates to the other article ...
remember ..1789/ French Revolution..had made by few idealist men
not by ordinary people !
remember ...2002 /Argentina.............
remember ....recent Arab uprising..........
and possible ones in the future.........!!
i mean that the feeding of the people's stomachs is not enough
there is need to be feeding of the people's brains too....
Why does Argentina claim South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands? I suspect that this is Argentina's bargaining chip, should any negotiations take place: “You give us back the Malvinas and we'll drop our claim to the other islands”. Otherwise, Argentina has nothing to offer. Do you think this is correct?
Aug 09th, 2011 - 06:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(70) Monty96
Aug 09th, 2011 - 07:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”And I'm still waiting for an answer to my question.”
I say:
”He was referring to a decision by the Islanders in 2006 to grant fishing concessions around the Islands over a 25-year period, rather than by annual renewal, a move which greatly angered Argentina and has sparked many outbursts and protests since.”
http://en.mercopress.com/2011/08/09/demanding-falklands-sovereignty-talks-before-anything-else-states-argentina-current-default-position
If you need any more info, please contact one of my trusted representatives in the Islands:
Neil Russell, SeAled PR – Stanley
or
Lisa ”Young Natural Face” Watson, Penguin News
Think
Aug 09th, 2011 - 09:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wasn't disputing the fact that the Argentine government was a bit cross about the awarding of 25 year concessions.
What I'm disputing is that we broke any agreements by doing so.
I take it you don't have an answer. Just an unhealthy obsession with Lisa.
[]- 80
Aug 09th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Monty = the short name of Montoneros ... is it true ?
i know the meaning of number 69 for Montoneros !
69 xbarilox ,,for a prick you have not changed, riots down the road, and all you can do is insult, , i hope it never happens to you, idiot,
Aug 09th, 2011 - 11:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0fuxking disgrace,
68 O gara , thank you,
at least you had the ability to think, no harm done.
thanks to the decent ones, we all joke at things, but when it comes to your door, its not fuxking funny,
(80) Monty96
Aug 10th, 2011 - 01:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
“Just an unhealthy obsession with Lisa.”
I say:
Just as she has an unhealthy obsession with us.....
And with our “Old Plastic Face”
Let's see her i 20 years time ................
Chuckle chuckle ™
Think has an unhealthy obsession with OUR lslands.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 07:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0With a government that pays homage to Peron and the continued lies about those islands, Its clear Argentina is still run by fascists. Patagonia was not annexed by Argentina until the 1880's so the islands never 'belonged' there. Thats fascist nonsense created by the Menem Administration.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 09:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0The 1834 protest, that first stated what Argentina wanted in terms of reparations and only asked for the East Island. This respected to the UK's 1771 agreement with Spain. Not the whole archipelago that has been continously lied about by Argentine officials. It would be very hard for Argentina now to claim the West Islands seeing as they never claimed it then.
Secondly, The Convention of Settlement Treaty settled all differences and created perfect relation between the nations of Argentina and the UK in 1850 and Argentina dropped all protests, accepting the islands were British. That was then followed by a Treaty of recognition between Argentina and Spain in 1864 that confirms all debts/inheritances happened in 1810. Not in 1816 as Argentine officials lie about. This was a year before Spain left the islands physically in 1811. So it's impossible there was any 'automatic' inheritance either.
All things considered it very obvious why Argentina has never considered to take the UK to an international arbitration the way Greece and Cameroon have. Maybe, just maybe our Argentine friends will look a little further than there media to discover why.
Your Comment@ Think (83)...well done on avoiding answering Monty's question Think, it is the standard Argentine practise when not having an answer that bolsters your own arguement, but just to ignore it and to mention something else. Classic Think.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 12:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0[] - 86
Aug 10th, 2011 - 02:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0here is the one of the Think ...so many more ones ...personifications !
#80 Monty69
Aug 10th, 2011 - 02:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Think
I wasn't disputing the fact that the Argentine government was a bit cross about the awarding of 25 year concessions.
What I'm disputing is that we broke any agreements by doing so.”
Ah well you see Monty that depends on your definition of “broke agreement”.
In Argentinas view to break an agreement with them all you have to do is do something that they don't like or agree with, even when it isn't actually against prior agreements or not. If Argentina doesn't like it then you simply shouldn't do it otherwise your in the wrong.
No agreement actually stated the Falklands couldn't award 25 year concessions BUT Argentina didn't like it therefore Britain broke the agreement... even though there wasn't an actual agreement on how long concessions could be... see if your an Argentine that makes sense.
HA! I'm laughing my arse off reading all the pathetic comments by islanders, so deluded and desperately wanting to legitimize an occupation by force and theft of natural resources that don't belong to you.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 03:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You think you're British? No, no, no. Take a look at what's going on in the UK right now. THAT is Britain. You live in this sort of idealized post-war bubble that has nothing to do with the reality on the ground in Britain - although you certainly feel self-righteous in your CRIMINAL ACTIVITIES, so I do suppose you have something in common.
But the fact remains that Britain's culture changes, yours stays the same; Britain's economic situation is fluid (and rapidly tanking), yours is isolated; and Britain's military spending is getting slashed, and I marvel at how this deal with France is going to work. Let's see Sarkozy send a destroyer 8,000 miles away for your peace of mind.
Britain is leaving you behind - culturally, economically, militarily. In a few decades, you'll have nothing but ancestry in common. You'll become a ghost - an unprotected ghost. The UN recognizes the islands as a “non-self'governing” territory without deciding whose “non-self'governing” it is against whom islanders can exercise self-determination. Britain gave up its sovereignty in 1790, confirmed this in Nootka, British foreign office and ambassadors have acknowledged as much in the early 20th century, and the current claim of “acquisitive prescription” has no basis in reality.
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
89# is your typical Argentine fascist coward making up lies and avoiding legitimate point. As I am from the developed world I will answer his.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 05:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The self determination points are clearly nonsense as the UN charter that both Argentina and the UK have signed up to clearly states that All people have Self Determination and there are no exceptions. Indeed if he was not so ignorant he would know that this is law, the General Assembly resolutions of course are not. The less said about the C-24 the better.
The Legal implications of the Nookta sound convention are often misunderstood in Argentina because like most aspects of the Argentine cause, it is deliberatley misrepresented. That convention worked in conjuntion with the 1771 agreement where both Spain and the UK recognised each others claim. #89 will not know this as like many things it is omitted from most historical texts in Argentina. The treaty allowed Britain to reintervene as soon as a third party became present, Which was General Rosas BsAs troops. This part of the events is often left out by fascist historians in Argentina, luckily they have us to put them right. In any case it was for the Spanish to question not the BsAs government and this never happened.
Furthermore the 1834 protest by Manuel Moreno only ask for the East Islands as I mentioned above, which indeed supports the 1771 agreement too as Britian was the only country to establish a settlement on the West Island.
ARGENTINE CLAIM IS A LIE. THATS WHY GALTERI TOOK THE OPTION OF INVADING AND NEVER SOUGHT AN ARBITRATION. IT HAS NEVER BEEN LEGITIMATE.
First half of the history of Argentina is a lie, how will we know if what the government says about The Falklands is true? I was told that Sarmiento was a good man, but he was a horrible horrible person. I was told that Rosas was a bad man, but he really was a good man. Schools in Argentina teach bullsh*t! Cristina de Kirchner says the islands belong to Argentina, should we trust that woman? She's nuts! Cuckoo! Que alguien le diga a Milagro Sala que deje de traer bolitas a vivir a Argentina, pobre Jujuy, da lástima ver lo que es Jujuy, tanto es así, que están pensando en que Jujuy se una a Salta, porque parece que Jujuy es una provincia inviable. Vieron que lo que yo dije hace ya un tiempo está pasando? Y así va a seguir pasando jajaja qué risa me da ver a estos pajertos como Think y Marcos Alejandro queriendo que el mundo se vuelva miope como ellos jaja en un tiempo más, Argentina como la conocemos, va a desaparecer jajaja
Aug 10th, 2011 - 06:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@89. You really have no idea what you are talking about. This fantasy Argentina seems to have dreamt about regarding the 'occupation' of the Falklands is a farce.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 06:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But obviously the angry man in Argentina who has never been to the Falklands or met an Islander knows more about the Falklands than the man who was born there, lives there, works there, will raise a family there and will eventually die there. Yes it is me who is deluded [sarcasm], even though I can see the very situation you are trying to describe with my own eyes and all you know about the situation is what is fed to you by your leaders. Angry Argentine Poster (89).... it is you who is deluded.
Well #91 You mention President Sarimento, he said in his Message to the Argentine Congress on 1 May 1869 President Domingo Sarmiento expressed satisfaction at the state of Argentina’s foreign relations:
Aug 10th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0'The state of our foreign relations fulfils the aspirations of the country. NOTHING is claimed from us by other nations; we have nothing to ask of them except that they will persevere in manifesting their sympathies, with which both Governments and peoples have honoured the Republic, both for its progress and its spirit of fairness'
This of course was twenty years after the signing of the 1850 treaty that settled all differences between Argentina and the UK.
@ 93, yes, i know what you're saying, and when I said that Sarmiento was a horrible person, I wanted to say that in our schools teachers teach us lies, all the time and comes the time when you don't know what's true and what's false. Sarmiento was a wise man, and I coudn't agree more with him. But sadly this is now, and as long as the people of the Falklands stay united they'll be able to bear whatever they need to bear in order to face everything the future can bring. Because with CFK in power, no one knows what will happen the next day.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Is not the true answer staring all in the face,
Aug 10th, 2011 - 07:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ICJ,
most bloggers one way or another seem to agree the ICJ is the answer,
the ICJ will make a desision, cannot we at least agree on that point .
@90 Hey Wayne,
Aug 10th, 2011 - 08:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Were you born that stupid or did you have to work on it to reach such a high level? Let me clarify a few things for you - please forgive me if I don't dumb them down to kindergarten level.
1. I never said there was an exception to self-determination.
2. I never said GA resolutions were law.
3. The legal implications of Nootka were clearly understoody by Spain, whose vessels after 1790 carried out enforcement against illegal fishing near the islands citing Nootka, not 1771.
4. If you pulled your head out of your ass long enough to read the 1771 text, (assuming you can muster enough brainpower to comprehend it) you'd realize that only Spain retains sovereignty, NOT Britain.
5. Actually I base my comments on British texts, not Argentine ones. The treaty did not allow for any reintervention on Spanish-held islands adjacent, which is what they were in 1790 and in 1814 when Nootka was reinstated following war between Spain and Britain.
6. Galtieri was a fascist SOB and he's rotting in jail. If I had my way he'd be facing a firing squad just like Rattenbach recommended.
But let's not forget who put him there in the first place: the US, who was intent on fighting commies everywhere. Ever heard of “Plan Condor”? I'm sure Nixon and Kissinger don't bear any responsibility for creating a monster like Galtieri, sending him to Ft. Benning, and later putting him in charge - democracy damned! You created a monster and it bit you back.
If, Britain's claim was so strong, why the slew of British Foreign Officers and Ambassadors who thought it was weak? After all, there must have been a reason to abandon the first basis of their claim, “prior discovery”, in favor of “acquisitive prescription”. Yeah, real strong! What's the next one going to be, huh? Argentina's claim has been consistent all along, and remains so to this day.
That's why...
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
So on that point
Aug 10th, 2011 - 08:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Can we then assume that the USA
Now has claims to our galaxy, and beyond, as it is an American rocket
That is visiting these places, , and can claim the moon, as America has landed there,
Mind you, mars bars are next on the agenda lol. [joke].
96 AlejandroArgerich
Aug 10th, 2011 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yay, you're back.
What was it you were saying about Nootka? If you have anything new to say and can summarise it in one sentence, I might just pay attention.
Otherwise pipe down; I wasn't talking to you.
Huh? I wasn't talking about you!
Aug 10th, 2011 - 09:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What I was referring to is Spain's post-Nootka enforcement of fishing activity. When they stopped American and other ships, they claimed sovereignty and cited Nootka, not 1771, for their authority, as well as for the fact that only the British retained fishing rights.
Sorry, my mistake, it was comment 89 that was about me.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 09:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You're still confusing me with someone who gives a stuff about Nootka.
That was two sentences anyway. And you can't cheat by putting in lots of commas just so you can say 'Nootka' a few more times.
@96Alex, baby. The Nootka Kid.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 10:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0l've missed you too!
your post 96, number 6), l agree Galtieri is rotting, but l don't think that he's in jail.
You really do not have a clue what you are talking about.
You just pad everything out with meaningless words. lf not a lawyer then a lawyer-in-training.
But please carry on. You make me laugh.
Well I’m clearly a lot smarter than you as anyone here can see as have failed to answer my points, you fascist moron.
Aug 10th, 2011 - 10:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 and 2 you wrote “The UN recognizes the islands as a “non-self'governing” territory without deciding whose “non-self'governing” it is against whom islanders can exercise self-determination”
So I was right to mention the charter and the flaws in the GA resolutions. Your original point was of no value.
3 and 4 you need to pull your head of your fascist teachers arse and read the real agreement that was signed 22/01/1771 read as follows …
‘the engagement of his said Catholic Majesty [the king of Spain], to restore to his Britannic 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.
Just because things are written outside of Argentina doesn't make then right either. Many of the British have been wrong on the matter too, it happens. The people you refer never set one foot in Argentina to investigate the archives, they based everything on what other authors biased to the Argentine cause had written. There has been much more information independent research since that has proven many things like the 1834 protest does.
As for the fascism part, you really have proven yourself to be quiet and Ignoramus. Yes the US is partly responsible for the dirty war but it started far before then. Since the coup of 1830 there were 15 military leaders of Fascist persuasion. Videla was put in charge of the Army by Peron’s wife. Argentina is one of the countries most associated with fascism.
THE ARGENTINE CAUSE IS A PRODUCT OF FASCIST COWARDS THAT’S WHY IN 65 YEARS YOU HAVENT PROPOSED ARBITRATION. THE 82' INVASION WAS YOUR ONLY HOPE, LOL
Ailing still not got your head around the 1771 declarations - try this, read and try to understand -
Aug 10th, 2011 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1768-1771/
If you follow the progress of the negotiations, you'll see that it was Spain who were desperate to retain their claim hence the mention in their Declaration. Britian's 'Counter Declaration' did not acknowlege Spain's claim. Therefore it affords no advantage to Spain/Argentina.
Wayne - small poinyt but Manuel Moreno's letter of complaint was written in 1833. Palmerson's reply is dated 1834. The post was slower in those days :-)
Any idea where I can see a copy of Moreno's complaint. Can't find on online and I didn't know he was only claiming East Falkland. No mention of that in Palmerston's reply.
Firstly one small mistake I meant 'Since the coup of 1930 there were 15 military leaders of Fascist persuasion'
Aug 10th, 2011 - 11:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt the orginal protest of 1833 only asked for reparations. The protest of 1834 stated what they wanted the East Island. So it would be very hard for them to make a claim for the West Island now. There is a photo of the actual letter posted in the debate group on Facebook, but I was shown it by a friend I'm not a member. I will get you link later :)
Thanks Wayne - such information is needed here - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
Aug 11th, 2011 - 01:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0@96 @101
Aug 11th, 2011 - 01:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0General Galtieri died in January 12, 2003 .... just FYI
when John Wayne died ?
Aug 11th, 2011 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0HA! You guys keep citing FI wordpress as if it was the last word - a more biased source I could not imagine. You cite FI sources, I cite British sources, so what does that say about the strength of your arguments? Truly pathetic.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 03:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@100 Oh Monty, we both know you don't want me to bring up Nootka because it destroys all your little theories about British sovereignty. Keep covering your ears, mate.
@101 Wayne, you inconspicuous imperialist wanker pirate, if you were to get any stupider your name would be Karl Pilkington. My 1. and 2. on #96 had nothing to do with my original post, I was responding to your #90 when you tried (poorly) to put words in my mouth. Perhaps in the perpetual fart cloud you live in, self-determination means the right to do whatever the hell you want. But in the real world, the right to self-determination doesn't equate to the right to ignore laws and treaties, as islanders do constantly. Further, SD stems from your status as a non-self-governing territory, and the UN in giving you that status doesn't define WHOSE non-self-governing territory you are. I know you're too daft to comprehend that the “NON” stands for, so I'll excuse that bit. By the way, your comprehension skills leave much to be desired. Why would Charles III of Spain demand the removal of a British colony if he had no proper claim? The 1771 text you cited is a SPANISH declaration that the British may return which “cannot nor ought in any wise to affect the question of the prior right of sovereignty”, SPAIN's sovereignty, over which the British were kicked out. Please keep on thinking I'm fascist, it's good camouflage and I prefer you not know my true motivations.
I'm “quiet and Ignoramus”?? Sure mate. Sure. Maybe you should repeat grammar school so you don't make such an arse out of yourself. Then again, it is quite amusing!
@103 Red, you continue to believe the British's absent reply seems to be of some value. It's not inked & doesn't exist - only Spain's reservation does.
No Alejandro you are the ignoramus. As I will prove furthermore as you obviously need assistance.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 05:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At 90# I was clearly responding to what you wrote at 89# to which you then answered. What I quoted at 102# was going to back to your original point, where you were clearly questioning the islanders Self Determination rights when the UN charter states that everyone has it, without exception. That’s where everything involving the UN stems from, not what Argentines with agendas like to think. What is written in General Assembly resolutions is not any kind of binding law. If they are not binding they probably will be ignored as often happens. The resolutions involving this dispute only 'requests' and 'suggests' they don't demand anything. Those assertions are nonsense. This crap about non-self governing territories and the Banana boat Decolonisation committee has nothing binding to offer either. Look what happened in Tokelau that was embarrassing for us all. That's the reason why there has never been any kind of sanctions against the UK and there never will. That’s why nothing has happened since 1965 and why the Security Council ordered your forces to leave the islands in 82'. It’s the difference between what is binding and what isn't you need to get through your thick skull.
As for the 1771 agreement it is not any kind of surrender document, it’s an agreement. It respected both nations rights and prevented war and was altered to do so. The original draft did reserve Spanish rights but the British refused it and it was altered to read what I copied. It talks of the restoration of Port Egmont. Not only that, the fact The 1834 BsAs protest to the UK only asks for the East Island strongly implies they knew this very well too.
As for the Pirate remarks there really isn't anything more pitiful than a beneficiary of Columbus and President Roca calling someone that. That’s your ignorance level though I accept. I speak English as foreign language. You don't know your history.
is not the ICJ waiting
Aug 11th, 2011 - 06:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You seem to be very confused:
Aug 11th, 2011 - 06:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“ you were clearly questioning the islanders Self Determination rights”
No I wasn't. I said self-determination is not a permission to ignore laws and treaties, because self-determination is a right unto itself that doesn't conflict or supersede prior treaties. Self-determination is an inalienable right of the islanders that does nothing to resolve the completely separate territorial dispute between Argentina and Britain.
Two separate issues there mate, you don't seem to be getting that. As far as Argentina is concerned, the islanders couldn't sue Britain for independence any more than American Samoa could sue Russia for independence. American Samoa, in the eyes of the UN, are a non-self-governing territory of the US. If Russia invaded by force, such as Britain does with Malvinas, American Samoa would still be - de jure - a territory of the US. If Samoans want independence, they'd have to get it from the US, even if Russia is the de facto occupier and administrator. The same applies to Malvinas.
“That’s where everything involving the UN stems from”
Sure, but that's not all that it encompasses. Islanders seem to be under the impression that the right to self determination is the right to ignore treaties and stand behind a British gun whilst they usurp by force what they want. There's a word for that sort of thing: theft.
“Look what happened in Tokelau that was embarrassing for us all. That's the reason why there has never been any kind of sanctions against the UK and there never will.”
You point to Tokelau - I point to Hong Kong. If there's one thing history shows is that the British tend to make deals when failure to do so affects the bottom line. Argentina is a resource-rich nation and like it or not, Britain needs (and always has needed) access to those resources. As western economic powers decline, the desires of islanders who are no longer even culturally connected will enter less and less into their decision making.
¡¡¡INGLESES PIRATAS LADRONES, FUERA!!!!
Aug 11th, 2011 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0MalvinasArgentinas
Aug 11th, 2011 - 07:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0translated means
Argentine pirates, go home.
why he insults himself ive no idea .
@109 Wayne - to continue,
Aug 11th, 2011 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“This crap about non-self governing territories and the Banana boat Decolonisation committee has nothing binding to offer either.”
Well since you're so eager to reject all the other non-binding “UN Crap” then I presume you dismiss as easily the concept of self-determination. Oh wait - I forgot, you're a hypocrite!
“That’s why nothing has happened since 1965 and why the Security Council ordered your forces to leave the islands in 82'.”
Sure, and the fact that Britain has a permanent seat on the council has nothing to do with it, right? Which is exactly why ICJ isn't an option for Argentina, because if ICJ finds against Britain, and Britain refuses to hand over (as I'm sure it will, based on islanders' wishes) the Security Council won't authorize any military action either. And don't give me any of that “we're in the 21st century” crap. Britain has a history of imperialist bellicose activity leading to annexations that goes all the way up to the 20th century with Diego Garcia. The bottom line for Britain is, they have bigger guns and an permanent seat on the council, and they administer the islands by force.
Don't worry, Argentina has friends in the council too. China is hungry, you know.
“The original draft did reserve Spanish rights but the British refused it and it was altered to read what I copied.”
Shows how little you know. The exact wording of both parties was agreed upon well in advance, as the historical record shows. Spain expressly stated its sovereign rights. Britain retained limited rights, not including sovereignty. Nootka ratified this bilateral position in 1790.
“As for the Pirate remarks there really isn't anything more pitiful than a beneficiary of Columbus and President Roca calling someone that.”
Quite the contrary: my disdain and condemnation of the acts of Columbus and Roca - the recognition of our wrongs - are the very basis that gives me the moral standing to denounce islanders' criminal activities.
Is right and in any way the question of history doesn't matter because Britain already recognized is has no claim on base of history, this is why in 20th century it abandoned its claim of “prior discovery” and switched to new claim based on “acquisitive proscription”, because the historical claim of Britain to the islands was weak and they knew it.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say Roca and Colombus, I say Cromwell and Longshanks. Let's add up the bad guys and see who has more! Fact is that Argentina's wrongs - admitted wrongs - do not justify the wrongs committed by islanders to their neighbors. They ignore treaties and steal resources that are not theirs. And they hide behind the British weapons to do it, cowards and thieves of the worst kind.
After all, what is “acquisitive prescription”? It means “we are here so long by force that it has become ours”. The same way a thief hides behind a gun to steal someone's watch and it “becomes” the thief's watch. Total BS. And you have permanent seat on security council then wonder why we don't go to ICJ. You don't respect UN resolutions that implore you to negotiate, so why we would ever believe you would respect ICJ decision if decides against you?
You won't respect ICJ. History is nothing, treaties are nothing. You find history not on your side so all of a sudden like majic you switch to another claim, and you militarize area so you can continue theft. This is why you don't negotiate. You are warlike, you colonize and steal what resources you can by force and force is the only you respect. This is why Alejandro is right:
“BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.”
first of
Aug 11th, 2011 - 07:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina has never admited it was wrong to invade the falklands
the falklands have never been agressive to argentina,[you know well]
thieves behind guns,, also dictators behind guns,
ICJ is the best way to go, and you know it,
[if it goes against them,they wont give it up]
but what if it goes against argentina, will you give up your claim,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
you just cant win,
oh and by the way, im looking around me, but i cant see anyone with a gun, so that is not true either,
you are only presuming, thats all, presumtion is all that is,
the ICJ is the way, and besides
what have you got to lose, that you already dont have, ICJ is the way to go.
No that’s not what you said in the #89. You wrote “The UN recognizes the islands as a “non-self'governing” territory without deciding whose “non-self'governing” it is against whom islanders can exercise self-determination” So you were clearly questioning the islanders Self Determination rights. That’s what I’ve been referring to all along.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I’m not quite sure what you mean by ‘sue’ but Argentina can pursue a case at the International Court of Justice like they did with Uruguay and Chile (A seperate world court for Chile, I know but the same thing). In fact the UK tried to take Argentina to the ICJ for the Antartic and the Dependencies, but Peron refused. Why didn’t he take advantage of the political momentum and insist that the Falkland Islands be included or dealt with first? Also spare me the Veto crap. It never stopped Greece and Cameroon pursuing a case against the UK and the USA and USSR taking each other. A decision against the British would have a huge effect including the UK too and we all know it. There are no excuses
Also what treaties? The last one that can be related to sovereignty is the 1850 convention of settlement treaty where all differences were settled and Perfect relations created. You’re the one ignoring treaties.
Also you obviously don’t know about Tokelau, but fair enough I’ll explain. It is an overseas territory of New Zealand in the Pacific that the Decolonisation committee tried to force to become independent and failed, demonstrating its lack of authority and legal power. So yes it a banana boat. Self Determination is part of the UN charter, its law.
As for the 1771 agreement whats worded in it matters, nothing prior matters. That's why it was changed it would have stayed the same otherwise. Nookta gave the UK the right to return when the the 3rd party intervened. It also cleary says “prior right of sovereignty of the Malouine islands, otherwise called Falkland’s Islands” As I said both countries rights were reserved.
Yeah the Decolonisation commitee is bollocks, the proof is in the pudding.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 09:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@117 Wayne Bird,
Aug 11th, 2011 - 09:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Go to it Wayne, you've got mr sanctimonious Alejandro A on the run.
He is a good & convincing liar, l'll give him/her/it that.
Even if they went to the ICJ, they wouldn't accept it's ruling if it went against them so it's really pointless to keep promoting this subject. l believe that they will try military force again. We must therefore, never let our guard down ever again. With OUR new-found oil wealth, we can get along quite nicely without Argentina, thank you.
Wayne, you still don't get it - there are two separate issues that you are mixing together.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 09:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self-determination, i.e. the right of a people to determine to continue an association or sue for independence, is one thing. It is the right to say either “we want to continue to be associated” or “we want to be independent”. This is a right I do not deny, as I believe it is a basic human right of every people.
What it NOT a basic human right is to ignore treaties and laws.
The second part, the part which you confuse with the first, is WHOM they say it to. Clearly, this is clearcut when there is no dispute of sovereignty, such as it would be with American Samoa. Samoans would ask the US for independence, or declare independence from the US - not Russia, not China, not Timbuktu, because that would make no sense.
But when dealing with disputed territory, the question of “whose territory is it” must be answered BEFORE. The right of a people to self-determination under international law does not equate to the right to declare independence from a nation who does not have clear and proper claim of sovereignty. Hence, the UN establishes you as a non-self-governing territory, yet does not specify WHOSE non-self-governing territory you are - and thus, which nation you'd seek independence FROM.
On that aspect, the UN defers to previous treaties, which it doesn't conflict with or supersede. As Hermes pointed out before, on the matter of history and treaties, Britain realized long ago that it cannot win. So they changed the basis for their claim - not a “modification”, a different claim altogether - basing it on “acquisitive prescription”.
That is the official position of the British government today. It essentially says this territory was held by Britain for so long that it might as well be British. It is territory taken by force, held by force, lost, then re-taken by force, and still held by force today. Hence:
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
Quite the contrary: my disdain and condemnation of the acts of Columbus and Roca - the recognition of our wrongs - are the very basis that gives me the moral standing to denounce islanders' criminal activities.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh my goodness, what ridiculous arrogance. Firstly there is no “recognition of our wrongs” Roca is still a national hero and sits proudly on the 100 peso note for a start. Your the first Argentine I've heard write about him with contempt, well done. Although I'm sure the Mapuche population would take great offence the 'recognition' crap. Secondly lets not fool ourselves, the persecution of the native peoples still happens. It happens in Misiones with the wood proficiency projects and the natives there are being displaced so 'you' as in the Argentine people haven't recognised anything at all, and are in no position to call anybody land thief whilst sitting on land that was stolen for you. I'm sure the Mestizo population sitting at the bottom of your society aren't feeling the love either. I know my Saltena ex-girlfriend didn't, she kept on telling me she was white. It was very sad
#115 Your going to have to scroll up. All your point have been answered before.
“what if it goes against argentina, will you give up your claim”
Aug 11th, 2011 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“[if it goes against them,they wont give it up]”
JAJAJA!!! Is pot calling kettle black no? Who alway break treaties?
BRITISH!!
No honor, theyre word mean nothing - LOOK HISTORY!!
1790 San Lorenzo you promise no colonies island held by Spain
1833 British invade by force kill 2 gauchos, who is the stupid???? EH??
EVEN MODERN DAY, you break word, fishing treaty you give licenses far beyond yearly renew.
BRITISH NOT WORTH OF TRUST - NO HONOR, GIVE WORD THEN BREAK IT, ALWAYS!!!
Just like pirate would.
You know what, Wayne, I can look at two parties and point out both their wrongs that that does not make me arrogant.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You, on the other hand, seem quite content to part from the position that Argentina is doing or has done something bad, and therefore this justifies your actions.
A moral person CANNOT justify “acquisitive prescription” any more than they can justify the bellicose activity of dictators, whose every action in power lacked force of law. You think I'm happy that Roca is still in the 100 note? You think I'm happy about what's going on in Misiones? Of course not.
Islanders, on the other hand, aren't displaced or starving. They have a thriving fishing industry which is protected by the Nootka treaty, which Argentina is bound to observe after inheriting Viceroyalty territories under Uti, since Nootka delineated what was and what wasn't Viceroyalty territory.
Yet you go far beyond that. You extract oil from something you people call the “Falklands Continental Shelf” (I am still looking for that elusive ”Falklands Continent). You say “where are the guns?” when you know quite well about the existence of Mount Pleasant and the T-42s that patrol the area, plus the SAM sites. Yeah, THOSE guns.
Instead of recognizing the sovereignty conclusions of the British in the early 20th century regarding sovereignty, islanders purposefully derailed the decolonization effort. When Britain could no longer espouse a historical basis for claim it transitioned to AP, which requires uninterrupted control. Practically an invitation for 1982, at the very least to interrupt.
Worst of all, even today when you know about suffering in Argentina, you continue to exceed your Nootka rights and usurp resources from a developing nation. Kick your neighbor in the balls while he's down. DESPICABLE!! You justify yourselves with delusions that the treaty doesn't apply, etc. And you do it while hiding behind British guns, since you think they'll be there forever.
They wont.
@ 123 So ungratful! Thanx to Roca, Cristina de Kirchner can enjoy her big house in El Calafate, and we can enjoy the beautiful Glaciar Perito Moreno and Bariloche and many more :) If it wasn't for him, you woudn't have an excuse to say all the crap you're saying. The Falklands belong to the people of the Falklands. Get this into your silly head!
Aug 11th, 2011 - 11:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I wonder how long before Paraguay starts claiming back the land our country took from them at the point of a gun. It was not only us but Brasil too. I'm sure you and this government won't deny their rights to the land. AlejandroArgerich, you are a loser! Stop crying for the indigenous dead people, like you care lol, *rsehole! Your living in the land of indigenous peoples, your house is not your house anymore, if you really care for them then give them their land back :) I don't think Cristina de Kirchner and Governor Fabiana Ríos will give their piece of land to the indigenous people, will they? It's easy to talk when it's not your home that is in danger, *rsehole :) From the North, this country is being taken over by Bolivians and Peruvians and from the east by Paraguayans, what are you going to do Mr Argerich? Are you going to bark at those people? Will you give them the brothers and sisters of Evo Morales your piece of land? Will you give your house to Milagro Sala? It will get to you one day, and I hope you will enjoy it, your time's coming too haha GIL! MORFÓN!
Alejandro everything you wrote in #120 is absolute nonsense. There is no clause in the UN charter (which IS the international law) that backs up what you have written. It’s a load of rubbish dreamt up in BsAs and you fool only yourselves. For example you write.
Aug 11th, 2011 - 11:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“But when dealing with disputed territory, the question of “whose territory is it” must be answered BEFORE”
Right, so how do you explain how the Glorioso Islands are not under this scrutiny or on this Bullshit ‘non-self-governing territory’ list? They are administrated by France but claimed by Madagascar. I’ll tell you why, firstly this non-self-governing circus is not legally binding and secondly the list is deliberately prejudice against the UK and the US. Why aren’t all the French Territories/overseas regions on that list? What makes them less of a colony? I tell what makes them more of colony; they are run directly from France like a region of France itself. In short it’s bullshit and only really taken seriously in Argentina where beggars believe.
Also the official stance of the British government today is to support the Self Determination of the Islanders, they have never ruled out the possibility of sovereignty change only against the islanders will.
As for #123 The Uti claim is absolute crap too. There was no binding international law in the 1800's. What jurisdiction gives you the right to make these accusations? It’s nonsense. In any case BsAs independence was unilateral and a unilateral state is only entitled to inherit what it controls at the point of independence, nothing more. BsAs independence was in 1816 and nobody from BsAs set foot on the islands until the 1820's. Furthermore Argentina established in the 1864 treaty with Spain that all inheritances were passed over in 1810, a year before the Spanish left. Therefore there was no automatic inheritance.
Can the UK change their stance? Yes if new evidence comes to light sure. Neither you nor I are in a position to talk for them.
Morning all!
Aug 11th, 2011 - 11:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ailing still trying to twist his interpretation of the Chater to suit Argentina's spurious claims I see. AND still trying to make history come out on their side too? Not a learner are you Ailing? Still, with Herpes to help you I'm sure you'll take great strides in getting nowhere.
Did you know that when the UK unilaterally put the question of South Georgia etc before the ICJ, there was actually an Argentine Judge sitting on the panel?
“ ... At the time of submission, an Argentine Judge, Lucio Manuel Moreno Quintana, was a member of the court.]...”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1945-1981/
The Charter grants UNQUALIFIED rights to the islanders.
Every attempt that Argentina has made at the UN to qualify the right to self determination has failed.
Argentina's ridiculous claim makes not an ounce of difference to the islander's legal rights.
Oh, and whinging on about the 'point of a gun' is laughable. The meek may yet inherit the earth, but NOT TODAY son!
Get used to it :-)
One more thing..
Aug 12th, 2011 - 12:14 am - Link - Report abuse 0Alejandro many of the French disputed territories are not even inhabited. They do not even have the excuse of Self Determination and they are still not on that fucking list. It's a Non-self-governing territory alright!! lol!
@124 me das asco, sos un boludo de verdad te parece bien lo que hizo roca? Porque no lees lo que dijo aristobulo del valle pelotudo roca y sarmiento te la comes redoblada gracias a fachos como vos ahora tenemos que bancarnos a la cretina y su circo de corrupción. No entendes que los KK son una reacción al accionar militar del siglo XX? No entendes que el accionar milico del siglo XX fue basado en una doctrina militar fallada? Cuanta sangre, solo porque pelotudos como vos se creen superior porque descendieron de europeos. Sabes que? Si vas a USA solo sos un “spick”. Si vas a España solo sos un “suda”. Vos y yo no somos un carajo en esos paises gracias a los periodos de violencia domestica en vez de tener periodos de crecimiento. Desde la muerte de dorrego, siempre la misma mierda. Lo que hacen los isleños esta mal, lo que hace kretina esta mal, y lo que propones vos esta mal. Evo tendra sus fallas pero por lo menos no permite que a su pais se lo culean.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 12:54 am - Link - Report abuse 0Si fuera el gobierno que propones vos, no hay suficiente KY que alcanze para evitar la quemadura nacional. ¿Sabes que necesita Argentina para salir adelante? Que los forros como vos pongan las palmas sus manos sobre sus muslos y empujen duro, duro, muy duro, para que por fin los fachos, los zurdos, y el resto de los pelotudos extremistas como vos se puedan sacar la cabeza del orto.
@125 Wayne, what you do you care about what the UN says? You've already said it's a load of crap because it's nonbinding. You keep saying the UN Charter is law yet when it comes to non-self-governing designation you shit on the UN? Which is it? At least try to hide your hypocrisy. Historical Fact 1: Uti was legitimated into treaty law since 1750. Historical Fact 2: From the point of independence (1816) BA controlled the islands. Historical Fact 3: UK didn't change their stance because new evidence came to light, but because old evidence was found indefensible.
@RedRuffian - ran out of space. Next time.
So much for your silly arguments.
Long winded - yes :-)
Aug 12th, 2011 - 01:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Here's an example of Argentina attempting, and failing, to get the right to self-determination qualified !
http://www.innercitypress.com/un1spdc102008.html
The Charter is the only game in town Ailing. The sovereignty problem that Argentina has is irrelevant.
When the islander's are ready and willing for independence, they'll get it. Nothing Argentina can do !
:-)
123 AlejandroArgerich
Aug 12th, 2011 - 01:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0I'm sensing that you don't like us very much :-(
However, I'm learning to live with it.
But seriously, your post is the biggest load of self- pitying pathetic drivel I've ever read.
We live in one of the most remote, inhospitable places on earth and out of virtually nothing we have through hard work and perseverence created a functional economy and society.
You have a huge country, massive natural resources and the potential to be a really big player, and through your own incompetence and corruption you just can't seem to manage it.
And not only do you want to take our country as well (and presumably wreck it) , you expect us to feel sorry for you!
It's pitiful.Get a grip man, and go out and do something usefulinstead of whining about 'British guns'. There were no guns here until you showed you couldn't be trusted.
@RedRuffian - I'm not saying that self-determination is qualified.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 01:58 am - Link - Report abuse 0But what you're saying that self-determination is carte-blanche to ignore treaties. The UN Charter does not resolve territorial disputes, neither does self-determination, and you know this.
Self-determination, if used, is by definition a right to legitimately obtain independence and sovereignty. As such, the outstanding question of law need be resolved before moving on to the next step, after which - should you choose to take it - is entirely unqualified.
Saying self-determination is qualified is one thing. Wanting to “skip a step” is quite another. The same principle of law works on macro and micro scales:
If you, as an islander, buy a vehicle, you must (I hope) ensure the entity you're buying it from has proper title first. If the title is in dispute, and there's a legal case to be settled, no transaction can take place. That doesn't interfere with your unfettered right to buy the car after the case is settled. What you're suggesting is akin to a british man selling an islander a car that belongs to argentine man. You can't buy the car until it's first determined who the car belongs to.
@130 Monty I never said I didn't like you. I only don't like the things you do, which are criminal. You don't like them either - that's why you fabricate all these insane justifications and fantasies about historical facts. All your criticisms are dead on. But at the end of the day, the fact is that Britain chucked the history claim in favor of acquisitive prescription.
When I say that British claim is a lie told at the point of a gun, it's because that is indeed the fact, as acknowledged by the present British position. Since you realize that the potential is there, it would only behoove you to be friendly to your neighbors so that when they get their act together and become a big player, you'll benefit by having appealed to their highest reason instead of suffer for inciting their basest vengeance.
What dispute?
Aug 12th, 2011 - 03:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0We don't have a dispute remember! We, in fact, have 'no doubt about sovereignty', so there is no dispute that requires resolution.
Why do you think we pick our words so carefully ?
In your scenario, title needs to be determined. But by whom?
As I've said before all roads lead to the ICJ and if Argentina doesn't go there then all it's got is rhetoric. It is not putting forward a case to be resolved.
Therefore, it may be assumed that Argentina has no case, and self-determination can proceed as per the Charter.
I shoud use a latin phrase at this point, but my memory fais me! It's an age thing :-)
'behoove' - how quaint, love it :-))
# 131 AlejandroArgerich
Aug 12th, 2011 - 07:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0”If you, as an islander, buy a vehicle, you must (I hope) ensure the entity you're buying it from has proper title first. If the title is in dispute, and there's a legal case to be settled, no transaction can take place. That doesn't interfere with your unfettered right to buy the car after the case is settled. What you're suggesting is akin to a british man selling an islander a car that belongs to argentine man.“
Your example is inaccurate.
The last sentence in your example should actually read:
”What you're suggesting is akin to a british man selling an islander a car that an argentine man CLAIMS to own.”
In this case if theArgentine man disputes ownership while the British man is in possession of said car, it would be up to the Argentine man to PROVE said ownership.
Hell anyone can CLAIM to own anything. I could CLAIM to own your house. If I do so does that mean you couldn't sell it?!
No so much for your silly arguments and you’ve produced some more.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 08:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0I care what the Charter says because that is what the UK, Argentina and the other 190 UN members signed up to. Yes, I do shit on certain UN committees as they clearly have agendas as I pointed out before. What possible reasons could there be for putting Bermuda on that list but not Mayotte? The UK has been singled out by a small group nations with agendas. They are not the UN at large to say so is absurd. The decolonisation committee has no legal or moral credibility anymore, and the world has every right to criticise it. You’re only defending it now because you have an agenda and we all know it.
As for your self-righteous historical facts they are very amusing, lol
1 “Uti was legitimated into treaty law since 1750” - What rubbish!! There was no universal binding international law of any kind in the 1700’s and 1800’s or any kind of global consensus or any consensus involving the UK that gave that kind of authorisation and no treaties involving Britain that could suggest such nonsense. Without a valid Jurisdiction you have nothing.
2. “From the point of independence (1816) BA controlled the islands” FALSE. There was nobody from BsAs on those islands until 1820. The first evidence of anybody with BsAs authority on those islands was in fact 1823 with Areguati (Yes Jewett was present there in 1820 but there is no evidence of any orders from BsAs).
3. There is a treaty that supports the UK position in 1850 where all differences and perfect relations were created between the UK and Argentina, followed by Argentina dropping its claim for decades and there were no mentions of it in the messages to congress either. President Sarimento said at the 1869 message to congress “Nothing is claimed from us by other nations” This is all firm evidence, as is the 1834 protest from Argentina asking for only the East Island.
If the UK position was indefensible the matter would have been pursued at the ICJ by you,
@131Alejandro,
Aug 12th, 2011 - 08:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0l not only don't like the things that you do, l'm starting to not like you either.
Monty is right. Stay in your own country & wreck it some more. You're not welcome here. You are a liar, a twister of facts & wholely obnoxious.
Every ridiculous point & assertion that you have made has been refuted, yet you still rabbit on. Begone, away with ye & irritate us no more.
Wayne, Areguati didn't have any official title or role. One was applied for but not given by BA.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 09:09 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ ... 1824 – On February 2nd, Luis Vernet’s expedition under the command of Pablo Areguati, arrives in the Falkland Islands. The expedition fails within six months. The islands are again abandoned.
[Prior to departure a title is sought for Areguati but not granted by Buenos Aires.]...”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1833/
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1823-1833/
The first 'official' from Argentina on the islands was in fact Vernet in 1829. Of course by then Vernet also had British permission.
” ... In June the Buenos Aires Government of General Juan Lavelle announces the ‘Political and Military Command of the Malvinas’ and grants Vernet the title of ‘civil and military commandant of Puerto Luis’ (Puerto Soledad)...”
There is little doubt that Vernet was playing the two sides off against each other but if Argentina gets any sovereignty at all it is through Vernet. The question would always be, 'who was Vernet working for?'.
I see the government of Singapore has shown it's position on the FI by holding 3% if RKH's issued equity. Now what is Argentina going to do about that?
Aug 12th, 2011 - 09:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0Another days arguing, to and fro
Aug 12th, 2011 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0and once again the brits come out on top,
the argentine argument, or lack of it,
just does not stand up,
just a shame that a potentale great country is being held back by an obsesion, mmm
136# Redhoyt
Aug 12th, 2011 - 10:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0I was reffering to the permission given by BsAs to Pacheco supported by Vernet on 23/08/1823. However Areguati was put in command, but yes he had no rank.
130 Monty96
Aug 12th, 2011 - 03:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say to Alejandro:
”……your post is the biggest load of self- pitying pathetic drivel I've ever read.
We live in one of the most remote, inhospitable places on earth and out of virtually nothing we have through hard work and perseverance created a functional economy and society.
I say to you:
”……your post is the biggest load of self glorification pathetic drivel I've ever read.
You live in one of the most remote, inhospitable places on Earth and out of the fishing resources you Brits steal every day from Argentina, you have created a totally subventioned and artificial economy and society.
Luckily……….: Those fishing resources are not enough to sustain “ first world standard of living” for many more than the 3.000 Brits currently squatting Malvinas.
That’s the reason why you people, even when bragging about your “little paradise” in the South Atlantic, do not permit any significant demographic grow or immigration.
And…………: No hard work has been involved at all in the cration of your “South Atlantic Paradise”............. Not by you British Squatters, in any case.
The first many years you just sold fishing licenses to other Countries fishing fleets.
Later some Islands Squidocrats saw a golden opportunity to make eve more money granting themselves 25 years fishing licenses.
But the real work is still done by foreigners. Chileans, Saints you name it........
Virtually no Islanders man the fishing vessels.…………………
You British Squatters just sit on your flat asses in Stanley and provide “services” to each other.
All paid by Argentinean Fishing Resources………………
Steal = theft and theft is to take from an owner. But the islanders are the owners, so there can be no theft and therefore no 'steal'. Think, not thinking again!
Aug 12th, 2011 - 03:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Squatter = people living on land that they do not own, but the islanders do live on land that they do own, so therefore there are no squatters. Think, not thinking again!
Argentine = idiots who think that they can take by deception that which they have never owned and can never own, therefore Argentines think like idiots. Think, thinking again :-)
@Wayne, I“m not saying the UN is perfect. I'm not saying the NSG territory lists every place it should. But you're assuming an alterior motive when in reality the most logical explanation is oversight. If the UK has been singled out it probably has to do with the fact that there's a continous, repetitive history of belicose activity with the aim of anexation of territories that were previously claimed by other european powers.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I'm not defending the decolonization committee. I only denounce the UK's stance, the basis of its new claim, its intransigence, its lack of willingness to negotiate like civilized people, and islanders exceeding their
crown-negotiated rights to extract resources at the point of a gun. To answer your other idiocies:
1-I said ”treaty law”, not international law. Pay attention.
2-The are orders for Jewett and I posted their text before as well as his commission document.
3-The 1850 treaty doesn't mention the islands and to say it favors the UK ignores the fact that the British were militarily engaged in Uruguay. Having already survived two British invasions, Buenos Aires was seeking a non-aggression treaty. Contemporary documents reflect this. Sarmiento
said a lot of shit, not all of it was correct. I will look up the exact text of the 1834 protest.
@135 Oh poor me, Isolde the chav doesn't like me. Go burn some more cars, you wanker.
@133 Legion I've already explained in previous posts the meaning of the word claim in legal terms when it comes to sovereign territories. If you're too daft to comprehend it I won't repeat myself. Go back to those pages and read it, then comment.
ISLANDERS = THIEVES!!!! CRIMINALITY!!!
Aug 12th, 2011 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@RedRuffian - Of course you don't have a dispute, Red. A thief never has a dispute with his victims. You may have “no doubt about” THIS sovereignty claim. The fact that you had doubts about your PREVIOUS sovereignty claim and now switched to this one denotes the inherent frailty of your case.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 03:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0ICJ? The issue here is that you are not worthy of trust. There is no incentive to go to ICJ because you have no honor, your word means shyte, and your permanent seat on the security council makes a legal enforcement action impossible because you'll just veto it.
So don't pretend ICJ is a fair venue when you know you have the deck stacked beforehand. I've already heard plenty of complaints from you all about ICJ being a “joke” - my, whatever will you say when they decide the islands should be administered by Argentina, their rightful owner?
As for the islanders being the “owners”, I've yet to see a declaration of independence. As of right now you own jack squat. Your rights are limited to fishing (not giving LICENSES for others to fish), landing, and erecting TEMPORARY structures. Everything you built down there is 100% illegal and a violation of the various treaties that legitimize your presence in the first place. Your wealth, your standard of living, and everything you have, has been obtained at the point of a British gun while you steal with impunity resources that you don't own.
That is what you are - thieves. Nothing more, nothing less. If your intransigence continues through the 21st century, it will only ensure your permanence will not survive it. Did you know there are ships afloat today that can fit over 3,000 people?
RECUPERATION IS INEVITABLE. Islanders won't accept it? One ship - that's all it takes to repatriate you. You can stay in the country you were born in, or you can leave and go back to a Britain that you have less and less in common with - one that's burning to the ground, because THAT is the real Britain.
Not your little island bubble zone.
@138 Briton
Aug 12th, 2011 - 04:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Another days arguing, to and fro
and once again the brits come out on top,
the argentine argument, or lack of it,
just does not stand up,”
ALL FANTASY.....VERY IMAGINATION!! patetic.
140 Think
Aug 12th, 2011 - 04:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When Chileans, 'Saints', Russians, Canadians etc come here and make the place their home, we don't call them 'foreigners'. What a disgraceful post- colonialist attitude you have, Think. That may be the way things work in Argentina, but not here.
I'm assuming that you have not built your house with your own hands, or killed a sheep to feed your dogs. You probably don't even grow your own food. Until you do, don't presume to lecture me or any other Falkland Islander about sitting on our 'asses'.
So agrarian labor justifies your illegal economic activity and exploitation of rich natural resources beyond what the crown negotiated for you?
Aug 12th, 2011 - 04:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This is the crux of the problem. You have those rights, and no one, not even argentina, could take them away from you. If you wanted to expand upon those rights, all you had to do is ask.
Instead, you adhere to the fantasy of British sovereignty, point a gun at us, and take by force.
You don't ask to expand your right beyond erecting temporary buildings, you just point a gun at us and build it.
You don't ask for permission to issue fisheries licenses to third parties instead of fishing yourselves, you just point a gun at us and do it.
You don't ask for permission to extract more natural resources than fisheries, you just point a gun at us and extract away.
Your standard of living, your dwellings, your buildings, your roads, your infrastructure - EVERYTHING - is based on exceeding your crown-negotiated rights.
And as if it wasn't dishonorable enough to ignore treaties, you do so BY FORCE. And you do it with a high-handed attitude and an air of superiority and hubris, while you delude yourselves in fantasies that you “own” the islands, when in reality you've done nothing to earn them in the first place other than the use of violence against those whom you've taken the territory from by force.
Absolutely despicable.
Alejandro
Aug 12th, 2011 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly the same accusations can be made against France, if not more so. Why are their territories not included on that list? Like you demonstrated there is no logical answer (apart from political bias). The British have every right both politically and morally to ignore it. It’s pathetic really.
As for your failed answers
1 International law would encompass any laws in the international domain regardless. There was also no universally binding ‘treaty law’ either. There was no consensus and that was no kind of answer.
2 There is no evidence of any orders or commissioned documents for Jewett. That is a lie and you know it’s a lie and there is no actual evidence to prove so. The letter presented on the island was written by Jewett himself. When he returned he wrote a 32 page report mentioning nothing of the claim too.
3 You haven't even read have you Alejandro. The failure to mention the Islands in the 1850 convention is to Argentina’s disadvantage not Britain’s. The treaty settled ALL differences and created PERFECT relations between Argentina and Britain. The opening title and statement mentioned nothing of any one particular dispute. There are 9 articles only the first 6 deal with the River dispute and Oriental bank (Uruguay to answer your point). Article 7 creates perfect relations which ended all disputes. Argentina’s failure to create a clause for the islands meant that their claim was dropped legally. This is proved further by the fact all mentions of the islands in the messages to congress and the protests to Britain stopped that very year for decades.
Whatever opinions there maybe of Sarmiento any falsehoods committed in the Annual messages to congress would have been rebutted, by other politicians and could of meant impeachment. Adding to the failure to protest and 1850 convention, the British Ambassador would have been perfectly within his rights to accept this as the government protocol. There was no claim pure and simple.
147 AlejandroArgerich
Aug 12th, 2011 - 05:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0''point a gun at us, and take by force. ''
No, AA, that's what you do.
We aren't pointing anything at you, or at least we won't unless you get too close without asking.
And we don't need to ask your permission for anything. I know you don't agree with that, but, nontheless, that's the situation we are in.
I find your complaints abouts 'hubris' and 'high-handed superiority' quite amusing actually. I get the impression that you'd all be much happier if we were downtrodden ill-educated forelock tugging colonials. And we're not. Sorry.
It is quite entertaining reading the comments from Think and AlejandroArgRich discuss how the people of the Falklands are forced and occupied by the British (by gun point apparently… I can’t say I have ever been threatened at gun point by British soldiers to exploit Falkland’s resources – I definitely can say my family has been threatened at gun point by Argentine soldiers). It gives me satisfaction knowing that these fanatic Argentine posters truly know nothing about my home and my country. Their arguments are based on incorrect statements which they believe are true. Statements that their corrupt dictatorship “teaches” them. But of course people who have never stepped on the Falklands know more about its administration and governance than the actual people who live and work there.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 05:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I have worked in the Falkland Islands Government and I have had a lot of exposure to the democratic processes in the Falklands, and I know how it works. And I know Think and Alejandro are completely wide of the mark. This reassures me that Argentina's failure to colonise the Falklands (because lets be honest that is what they are trying to do) is because of their own incompetence. A country of 40 million people can’t overcome an island community of 3,000. This truly reflects the incompetence of Argentina and its people.
And let’s face facts. The British Forces are only here because of the threat posed by Argentina. But using the very special talent that Argentines have developed sophistically, they twist logic and facts to fabricate lies to favour their arguments. The British Forces are in the Falkland Islands to make sure Argentina never invades the Falklands again and to ensure the people of the Falklands can exercise their right to self-determination. Why would Britain hang onto the Falklands? Why not India or South Africa or Canada or Australia etc etc? No, according to the Argentines the Falklands are more profitable to the Britain than those other countries! Laugha
I see Arturo's back.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 05:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thought he might have curled up and died.
Anyway for all you supercilious Argentinian pricks - The Union Jack still flies high and proud over these our beautiful and resource rich Falkland Islands and South Atlantic territories. Suck on that and look forward to another comprehensive thrashing at the RU World Cup.
That's a bit arrogant isn't it? Suggesting that the Falkland Islanders Argentina's permission to do anything.... Laughable!
Aug 12th, 2011 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(146) Monty96
Aug 12th, 2011 - 06:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Killing subsidized sheep, growing cabbages in subsidized polytunnels and constructing subsidized houses with subsidized materials transported on subsidized roads.................................................
Jupppppppppp……… That’s what I call sitting on your flat fat asses.
You are just jealous because I’m a better fisherman than you,…………… fishergirl.
Bluefin Tuna 264 kgs. Perú
Black Marlin 202 kgs. Perú
Sailfish 57 kgs. Mexico
Mahi Mahi 26 kgs. Mexico
Cod 22 kgs. Norway
Dorado 16 kgs. Paraguay
Rainbow Trout 11.9 kgs Patagonia
Brook Trout 3.8 kgs. Patagonia
Beat any of these..............
Chuckle chuckle™……
“ICJ because you have no honor, your word means shyte, and your permanent seat on the security council makes a legal enforcement action impossible because you'll just veto it.”
Aug 12th, 2011 - 07:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You don't really know what the veto is, do you?
As for the ICJ we are one of the few nations who take ICJ rulings as final. Argentina for example, would not be obligated to.
Historical Fact 1: Uti was legitimated into treaty law since 1750.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 07:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0False.
uti possidetis on the basis of effective possession (de facto) was accepted as a basis for treaties long before 1750
uti possidetis on the basis of legal documents (juris) was not formally agreed upon until 1847-48, initially only applied to former Spanish Colonies (Brazil opted for UPdF)
Historical Fact 2: From the point of independence (1816) BA controlled the islands.
False. Argentina never established full effective control over the whole archipelago. In fact it never even managed to establish full effective control over Port Louis. Spain never managed to establish full effective control over the whole archipelago either. The first to do so was the UK and that was after 1833.
Historical Fact 3: UK didn't change their stance because new evidence came to light, but because old evidence was found indefensible.
False
The British position has not changed. International law did when the right to self determination became part of it after 1945.
#155
Aug 12th, 2011 - 08:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0uti possidetis on the basis of effective possession (de facto) was accepted as a basis for treaties long before 1750
Under what jurisdiction held the UK accountable to this? That is a falsehood. There was no universal binding law of kind that the UK was subject too.
Wayne, you misunderstand me. An uti possidetis treaty simply meant that the signatories kept the territories they effectively possessed at the time of signining, regardless of what previous treaties between the signatories may have said. I never said that such an uti possidetis treaty was binding on non-signatories.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 08:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I understand, however it wouldn't be used to hold Britain in contempt as some may like to think, as there was no Universal jurisdiction imposing it at that time.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 09:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I never said there was.
Aug 12th, 2011 - 09:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@142Alex,
Aug 12th, 2011 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well l don't know about a chav, but l have owned a couple of American Chevs & damned fine cars they are too.
lf cars set your level of intelligence, liar, oops l mean Alex,you must be driving a Trabant or a Moskovitch!
And FYI l would find it difficult to wank, but you no doubt indulge quite often.
Yes you are right, l don't like you. l don't like the trouble that idiots like you stir up.
After some research, l realise that the British posters on here as regards the Falklands are generally correct & the Argentines are mostly liars. Therefore there is no need to repeat the evidence available.
You Argentines are not only wrong, you know that you are wrong but you cannot stand to lose face.
You make much about the “point of a gun”.
lsn't that how Argentina was developed? Taking land from Chile, Paraguay & the native peoples? You Argentine posters are themost hypocritical people that l have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
ln closing, mr high & mighty Alejandro, you will NEVER get our land, so suck it up baby.
Morning all, Ailing not got his heart in it any more. Comes of sticking to arguments that have been ripped apart so effectively by Dab, Domingo and others. Hooked on Nootka and Uti though, neither of which apply.
Aug 13th, 2011 - 12:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still he's young. May yet go on and learn something.
The ICJ is the only venue in town. It belongs to the UN after all and yet you think it is biased against Argentina? So how come Argentina thinks it is doing so well at the UN?
Sounds like legal cowardice to me!
153 Think
Aug 13th, 2011 - 09:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one is impressed by the size of your 'fish'.
(162) Monty96
Aug 13th, 2011 - 10:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”No-one is impressed by the size of your 'fish'.”
I say:
That’s a “Fishergirl’s tale” if I ever heard one.........
Acquisitive Prescription?
Aug 14th, 2011 - 12:39 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina seized Patagonia and now claims sovereignty of the basis of .... acquisitive prescription. Just wanted to point out that inconvenient fact.
Looks like my holiday was time well spent. Ciao to the sane.
I don't normally like to repeat myself but this is worth the effort.
Aug 14th, 2011 - 02:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0For the serious minded, Dab, Domingo and others, a consideration of the sovereignty issues in the south Atlantic.
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/08/14/fear-and-loathing-in-the-south-atlantic/
For the rest, I wouldn't read it ... you'll find it disturbing !
@148 Wayne - you're right! But you're not French citizens. You're British Subjects. Hence, that particular accusation, is made against you. The British have every right both politically and morally to ignore it, because they use force. This being a continuation of their politics by other means, it conveniently serves to define their morals as well - leaving them free to ignore both.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0As for your failed responses:
1. International law can only encompass what it supersedes. Than can only take place where there's a conflict between international law and a previous treaty. Where it regards the territorial sovereignty of the islands, such a conflict of terms is nonexistent.
2. There are indeed commissioning documents for Jewett and I've previously posted the translated text verbatim as well as the date and the government officials who signed it. Go find it instead of commenting on things you obviously have no knowledge of.
3. Here again we have this lunatic thinking that something is meant in a document wherein the subject at hand is not specified.
I know the intellectual capacity of hooligans is diminished, but the fact is that if it's not written down, it doesnt exist, and this is not subejct to interpretation. The British claim in the 1771 text is notable only for its complete absence. It does not exist in that document. Likewise, the 1850 text makes no mention of the islands. The islands' sovereignty issue is notable only for its absence. It does not exist. Neither can work to British advantage or Argentine detriment, because they DO NOT EXIST.
Besides, how many times must we go over the fact that actions performed by de facto governments have no force of law? Rosas was a dictator who ended up losing a civil war, with numerous protests prior to him. Indeed, Rosas was “impeached” - by force, defeated at Caseros, after which he ran off to Liverpool, where the British met him with open arms.
I wonder why that is. It's almost as if he had done them favors before!
jaaaajajaja ingleses boludos!!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0@149 “ I get the impression that you'd all be much happier if we were downtrodden ill-educated forelock tugging colonials. And we're not. Sorry.”
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:19 am - Link - Report abuse 0Well - I must say, you certainly fooled me! What with all your highly-civilized “there's nothing to negotiate” talk...why, I don't know why anyone would think of you as ill-educated given the way you all seem to handle yourselves, and the certainly unquestionable interpretation of historical facts you seem to present.
Or, maybe you're all just full of shit.
@150 I never said you were forced or occupied by the British. I said you were British occupiers. If you're a civilian and Argentine troops pointed at you, you have my apologies. If you were one of the sneaky little bastarts using radios to relay positions or took part in aiding British troops, then you were an unlawful combatant. If you were a member of the FDF then you were a lawful combatant. If I were a betting man, I'd be willing to bet you were most likely in either of the two latter groups than the former!
That aside, I'd venture to say it is not our arguments which are incorrect, but yours. No one “taught” me my conclusions. I see a 1771 text in which Spain maintains sovereignty inked on paper and Britain does not. You, on the other hand, see a 1771 declaration where Britain's sovereignty was so obvious that it neededn't be written out. I see a Britain that is a crumbling empire socially tearing apart at the seams. You see a Britain where patriotism is just as strong as it was after WW2 and that defend by force your illegal occupation of our islands long after the royal treasury has been depleted.
One of us lives in la-la-land, mate - and it's you.
@152 it has nothing to do with arrogance, it has to do with following treaties with force of law.
¡¡INGLESES PIRATAS LADRONES, FUERA!!!!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0@155 Dab, we've been over this. UPdF was formalized into a treaty. That makes it de jure from that point forward. Treaties have force of law in Brazil too, you know.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0And Britain didn't achieve full effective control over the archipelago either before the 1833 invasion. So by your own logic, that's no basis for either side. Unfortunately for you, there were texts.
Thidly, when insofar as a territorial sovereignty of a place invaded and settled, the invading nation's “old evidence is found indefensible” (also known as “full of shyte”), a civilized nation acknowledges and makes amends, instead of pulling something out of its arse like the British have done. Acquisitive Prescription claimed by Britain has nothing to do with the right to self-determination. One
concept applies to Britain. The other to islanders.
@156/7/8/9 Neither did I. But Dab here wants to make believe Uti Possedetis de Jure was a South American invention, when in fact the concept went from being de facto to de jure 98 years before Lima. Ignoring facts does not make them go away.
@160 Isolde-my-anus-for-five-quid, if cars set my level of intelligence, you might want to figure me for the late-model mercedes parked outside. I won't brag but I will say it's a V8 model so make of that what you will. I used to own a chevy too, and those cars break down quite often. The high-powered ones are lots of sound
and fury when reving but the power curve is shit even after modifications, and thats assuming your tires hook. Just the sort of rubbish a little bellend like you might like to drive to think he's cool. You did research? Seems to me you couldn't find your ass with both hands. Good of you to ignore the evidence, though - after all, why trouble to work that foul-smelling brown matter inside your skull that you call a brain? Well, anyway, I'm assuming you've been rounded up with all the other chav hooligan idiots, so feel free to drop me a line when you get out.
I am so looking forward to it!
JAAJAJAJAJAJAAAA
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:24 am - Link - Report abuse 0@161 RedRuffian, more fantasy! My arguments “ripped apart” by larry, curly and moe. Sure...
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0@164 Argentina does not claim sovereignty of any territory on the basis of acquisitive prescription. Once in a while, try reading a factually
correct source.
Once again, a pageful of idiocies, fallacies, and fantasies by people so desperate to justify their position they'll make up anything and ignore all evidence to the contrary.
Nothing that you've said can make up for the fact that Britain has no legal claim to the islands and its occupation is illegal. Nothing you've said has proven that the 1771 text holds a competing British reservation of sovereignty so as to warrant a pre-existing legal right to return in 1833. Nothing you've said has proven that the 1790 text was inapplicable given that they were islands held by Spain with no British presence at the time. Nothing you've said has shown there have been other subsequent treaties to modify the territorial terms of Nootka from 1790 to the present day, as UN makes no such dispositions of territorial sovereignty. Nothing you've said has shown that Uti Posseditis didn't exist as a de Jure concept of law since the concept was legitimized in the 1750 Treaty of Madrid, or that territorial inheritance under Uti was some sort of a 19th-century latin american invention.
And, nothing any of you have said have explained the fact that Britain completely chucked its basis for claim on “prior discovery” in favor of “acquisitive prescription”, underlying the inherent weakness of the reason for what they claim was a legal return in 1833.
Therefore the 1833 invasion, by Britain's own admission, was legally indefensible. So is every other act that follows. You people sit there, steal resources that don't belong to you and pass judgment on the very nation you're stealing from. Then you justify your aberrant behavior with these fantasies. But at the end of the day...
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
Ailing - still going nowhere I see !
Aug 15th, 2011 - 04:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka does not apply because the islands are not ADJACENT ! This has been proven to you with 18th century definitions and an ICJ judgement.
You are adopting an 'ostrich' position.
1771 was a British win and as it is not a Treaty, Spains declaration has no meaning and less effect!
If this matter ever got to the ICJ it is unlikely that they would consider anything prior to 1811 and would take the period 1811 to 1833 to decide who had the best title to sovereignty. After all, there is no doubt about who is exercising sovereignty after 1833.
Goodbye 1771. Goodbye Nootka. Goodby Uti Possidetis Juris.
1811 - 1833 is where the game would be played. And while Jewett may have carried official rank, he carried no instructions to claim anything. Not that it matters much. Turning up, claiming and going away again is not sufficient in international law to give sovereignty ... so goodbye Jewett!
All you've got is Vernet after he got an official title in 1829, but by then he was already operating under a licence from the British, which rather kicks that into touch! Goodbye Vernet.
So nobody had effective sovereignty between 1811 and 1833 - confirmed by the good ol' US of A of course. Then the British storm in in 1833 and do exactly that - exercise sovereignty .......... goodby argentine claim !!
An 'ostrich' position just leaves you with your bare arse in the air!
Getting draughty Ailing ??
:-)
@170 Anus Alejandro,
Aug 15th, 2011 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0l guess l'm a bit slow on the uptake or maybe l just normally see good in people, but l've only just realised that you are completely mad. Bonkers, round the twist. Damn it, now l've got to feel sorry for you & l was so enjoying our cosy tête-à-tête.
l take it that for some reason you think that l've been out looting London. No need to, l'm loaded($$$$$$$$$£££££££)!
l'm not even in the same hemisphere, you fool. And even if l was looting & arrested, you want me to write to you when l get out? How sweet, Mad Alex, l didn't think you cared about anyone except yourself & your Mercedes. Yes l love them too. Thats about your only saving grace.
As l said, the evidence ALL says that..............we own the Falklands & you losers, err Argentines do not.
What else is there to be said? But, please, do go on.
If Nootka did apply to the islands(if). In the convention there was a process set out in which SPAIN and the UK could resolve said problem. Spain has never taken the opportunity todo so.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka was signed by two dead entitys, The UN is international law now.
Self Determination is a human right, you can try ignore it all you like, doesn't stop it from being true. If Argentina was SO sure of itself, you would have taken this to the ICJ.
I know I’m right Alejandro. I’ve been right all along. The British have not avoided decolonisation by force a part from the 82’ war. Again I refer to the case of Tokelau. It is an overseas territory of New Zealand that rebutted that banana committe. Do they have any real power? No! Your theory is nonsense.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your answers are flawed too.
1. The treaty you refer to was bilateral, and there was simply was no binding international law (that would hold others in contempt) of any kind in those times, to suggest so is false. What was decided between Portugal and Spain has no influence over the world at large, it was a motion between them and only a legal right between them. Without a Universally binding jurisdiction making the principle law it has no legal value except between those two nations.
2. Again that is a well known lie. There is no actual evidence of any orders. Independent researchers did indeed go to the Argentine Archives and found nothing. When Jewett returned he wrote a 32 page report mentioning nothing of the claim too. Why don’t you try showing a copy of the actual documentation? Not what somebody has written in a book.
3. Wrong again, just like you were wrong to mention Uruguay before (maybe you’ve read it this time). All and Perfect is specific and it does not mean anything less as it was a general treaty between the two nations. That’s why all the protests were dropped. Only a lunatic why try to argue otherwise especially with this ‘Exist’ crap what utter nonsense (How long did it take you to think up that bullshit? Your not that smart Alejandro and I’ll never be that stupid, ;) lol). That’s the reason why it’s not mentioned in most Malvinas history books. Sadly you haven’t realised why yet.
Just when I though you couldn’t you get any more desperate you proved me wrong in your paragraph about Rosas. You know very well that Rosas is considered a nation hero like Roca and is also proudly displaced on Peso notes. The 1850 is considered by most in Argent
You got cut off!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:40 am - Link - Report abuse 0Yes I did!, sorry I'm new to this forum!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0To repeat my last paragraph for Alejandro, this time completed.
Just when I though you couldn’t you get any more desperate you proved me wrong in your paragraph about Rosas. You know very well that Rosas is considered a nation hero like Roca and is also proudly displaced on Peso notes. The 1850 is considered by most in Argentina as a triumph. Secondly, Inter-governmental treaties are not affected by the fact one of the signatories were De facto. That’s the why democratic government of Argentina signed a treaty with the Pinochet regime in the 80’s. So we don’t need to go ‘over it’ anymore I hope. If there were any problems the ‘Legal government’ that followed would have protested against the treaty as soon as they were in office. However as it turned they didn’t even protest about the Islands sovereignty. I rest my case.
However I would like to know one thing from you. What is the specific date of the 1771 treaty you keep on referring too?
@Alejandro
Aug 15th, 2011 - 12:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You keep banging on about Britain's claim. Britain can't claim something it already has. And 178 years of open occupation is more than enough to establish title, whatever happened before 1833. Anyway, anything which happened before the UN Charter was signed and ratified by the UK and Argentina is irrelevant. The only principle which counts now is self determination. Self determination cannot be limited by territorial disputes. These are things you have failed time and again to disprove.
168 AlejandroArgerich
Aug 15th, 2011 - 12:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Why don't you give me an example of even one time when I have presented any interpretation of your 'historical facts'?
You won't find one. And that is because I think that the UN Universal declaration on human rights is more important in todays world than something you think was agreed in 1771 by some country that wasn't even Argentina.
I think you are either a crazy person or a troll; I haven't decided which yet.
If you want to be taken seriously by people who live in the real world, why don't you come up with some sensible suggestions? Telling us we are only entitled to live in tents just makes you look like an idiot.
There is no Treaty of 1771. There are 2 Declarations'. Spain, as the loser, felt obliged to reapeat ' but its my ball', Britain, as the winner, just ignored Spain.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 12:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No Treaty, nothing legal.
And Zethe is quite right, for all the historical and academic arguments, the UN Charter is the only game in town. It is unqualified. In particular, it is unqualified by sovereignty issues !
Chin up Ailing, you can always become a politician :-)
That was me mentioning the word 'treaty' It was an agreement. A silp of the tongue or fingers, lol. I'd like Alejandro to answer that question about it though.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 02:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Alejandro's piccy
Aug 15th, 2011 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://hotornot.com/rate/profile/alex79818
A more recent picture.
http://hotornot.com/rate/profile/alex79818
So hot or not?
I vote not.
Don't expect to get an answer out of Alejandro, he just talks crap.
@176/182 No Wayne, what you know deep down inside is that you're fooling yourself, that's all. Grasping desperately at strings to try to form a legitimization that was never there and never will be. What banana committee are you referring to in Tokelau? In any case the example you cite is not the same situation at all, as NZ is a commonwealth realm and there is no competing sovereign nation claiming sovereignty.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 05:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for my answers:
1. You misunderstood my citation of 1750 which was only to establish the fact that UPDJ was legitimized for the first time in that document, instead of being a 19th century LATAM “invention” as Dab claimed. I never said it had legal value other than between the bilateral parties, but was instead responding to Dab was asserting that the first time UPDJ became a legal concept was Lima 98 years later, which is demonstrably incorrect. My statement is merely that the first time Uti de Facto was legitimized into de Jure was 1750 in the Treaty of Madrid, not 1848 in Lima. You extrapolate a meaning from my response that I did not assign to it and then claim I'm wrong - no doubt a symptom of your preponderance towards fantasy when it comes to historical events.
2. Jewett WAS a commissioned officer at the time of his landing, as much as you'd like to deny it. His commissioning document and orders were duly signed and published and may be inspected, and it reads:
“I hereby name don David Jewett as Colonel of the Army in the service of the National Marines, with a directorial deployment ongoing, this 15th of January, 1820.
Matias Irigogyen
Minister of War“
Go ahead, tell me how I made that up, or that it's a forgery. After all, fantasy is what you seem to be best at!
3. Yes, I'm sure ”All“ is a very specific term in la-la-land, but in the real world it's quite general in nature. What ”exist” crap, what are you talking about?
To be continued...alguien me da paso?
dale!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 05:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0gracias! Continued,
Aug 15th, 2011 - 05:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 04. You still haven't accounted for the fact that Rosas was a dictator and one party of a civil war that he ended up losing, and that as such his actions are de facto -“without force of law”. Views of him in today's national conscience is of no consequence when discussing a matter of law. The fact is that he was soundly defeated, he fled, and the nation's military academy stands on the spot where he lost - and for good reason.
Also, inter-governmental treaties signed by a de facto government lose legitimacy as soon as a de jure government is restored, until it is ratified de jure as well.
1850's NEVER WAS, so that's that.
As far as no immediate protest being lodged after Rosas was deposed, need I explain that civil wars tend to keep national governments rather busy? Ever heard of the “restoration”? The soonest Argentina could get back to the issue was 1884. That doesn't imply that Argentina relinquished sovereignty in any way.
As far as 1771, there are THREE documents. The agreement, and two subsequent declarations by each party. The date I'm referring to is 22 January 1771, which was a bilateral agreement signed in London on that day, which stated clearly that:
”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”.
The declarations, by each government,were made afterwards, their purpose was to advise their respective officers of the treaty and actions to be taken to that effect. But the actual agreement was signed by both parties simultaneously in London, and the text of that agreement clearly states Spain only allows Britain
to return to its settlement, while reserving sovereignty of the islands unto itself, with Britain making no such competing statement of its own sovereignty over Edgmont or any other part of the archipelago for that matter.
¡¡FUERA INGLESES PIRATAS!!!!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 05:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@174 Isolde - They let you out so soon?
Aug 15th, 2011 - 06:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Well at least you had some fun setting buildings afire and beating up blokes and whatnot. As for me, I'm quite content to watch from a distance as the true meaning of being British is revealed. Quite a show I might add! Come on, islanders, your turn. Go on now, grab a can of petrol and a match, and go show the world just how British you really are!
@179 JA once again your cognitive brilliance astounds! Maybe one day you'll learn the difference between the verb “claim” and the noun “claim”.
Today, it seems, is not that day.
@180 Monty I never said you presented any interpretation of MY historical facts. But you do misinterpret historical facts at large.
For instance, show me where the text of the UN Declaration of Human Rights settles all territorial disputes. Go on, I'll wait...
@173 RedRuffian - Ah, what a wonderfully fantastic world you live in, so devoid of the harsh nature of the reality of facts.
For starters, Nootka's application isn't solely limited because they are “adjacent” (which they certainly are), Nootka applies because they were “already occupied
by Spain”. There are TWO qualifiers in the text. They both apply, and even if the most subjective one does not, the other one is rock-solid.
So, are you now going to tell me the Spanish weren't there in 1790 and the British were?
Go on now. With every post you write, I am ever more amazed at what lengths you'll go to ignore facts. I love the latest one, “Spain's declaration has no meaning and less effect”.
WOW!
You know, usually I'd have to smoke something to get that kind of surreality. In any case, if we play 1811-1833 ICJ would make a consideration of Terra Nullis prior to Jewett's arrival in 1820, after whose declaration the British case just crumbles into dust. Of course Britain realized as much, which is why they determined their historical claim was indefensible.
Just the facts - no ostrich here. As far as birds go, your goose is cooked.
Alejandro 184 and 186 all blah blah blah blah irrelevant. Anything pre the UN Charter is really just history. Get used to it.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Self determination is the only thing which counts. It is applicable to all people, and in the case of the Falkland Islanders this has been clearly spelled out in a number of UN Resolutions. Furthermore, that right to self determination cannot be limited in any way, particularly not by territorial claims. This is not something which is going to go away, just because you don't agree with it...
Alejandro adopts the standard Argentine technique of constantly repeating the same crap again and again. They seem to think if they say it last they win the argument. No matter that each and every point was rebutted.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BTW he was lying when he claimed to be a law student, he is a cameraman on the PGA tour.
1. 1771 Agreement was a defeat for Spain and establishes the British right to be in the Falklands
2. 1790 Nootka doesn't apply.
3. 1850 Convention of Settlement - whereby Argentina abandoned its claim.
In 1885 they revived the claim under Roca's government, just as at the same time they decided to reinterpret the treaty with Chile and claim the Beagle Channel Islands.
The same Argentine map that sank the Argentine case in the Beagle Channel case is interesting. 1. it shows the Beagle Channel islands as Chilean territory, 2. It also shows the Falkland Islands as foreign NOT Argentine territory. Ooops, petard anyone?
So you can now expect Alejandro to froth at the mouth and write a load of nonsense in rebuttal but that doesn't change anything.
And he still is NOT hot.
Rights....blah blah blah FACTS blah blah TREATIES blah blah blah LAW blah blah
Aug 15th, 2011 - 06:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE ISLANDER!
...a batch of this, a bit of that....
....season with some fantasy, to the tune of “self-determination deals with territorial disputes”...
...boil for 30 minutes, and PRESTO! The islands are rightfully British - strain, chill, serve.
You'll excuse me if I don't drink the cool-aid.
¡¡LAS MALVINAS SON ARGENTINAS, FUERA PIRATAS DE MIERDA!!!!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 06:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin, on the other hand, adopts the classic technique of telling falsehoods while simultaneously accusing your victim of the very thing you're doing. And he's had lots of experience with that, here and in other sites as well. This works just fine, but it only works for a certain amount of time, after which the tangled web he weaves becomes unmanageable and others start picking it apart thread by thread.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 06:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Justin's finding that out right now on WP, aren't you. Don't try and strain yourself mate, just sit back and watch, we'll take care of everything.
And his points above?
1. Fantasy.
2. Fallacy.
3. Outright wishful thinking.
Not a shred of fact in each of the three things he said - or anything else he's put forward, for that matter. How about a link to that map? Then again, as usual, I suspect your so-called “sources” aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Cameraman? Oh Justin I didn't know I've been demoted! Yet another example of how Justin distorts facts. Another one, I'm not a student. REALLY? Well then I dare say I'm due for a tuition refund. No free rides here, Justin, I work to study and I study to work.
Not surprising coming from a person who lives under a government whose sole source of income is to sell licenses for others to exploit resources they don't own.
Nice racket! I wonder if Sarkozy will protect it now that the RN fleet is headed for mothballs. This is of course important given that the military presence is really the only thing that allows islanders to continue their outright theft of resources that don't belong to them, given that legally they have no right to them.
Which is why....
BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS A LIE TOLD AT THE POINT OF A GUN.
A question I have been meaning to ask. I have in front of me a copy of Laurio H Destefani's book. Even the official Argentine propaganda of 1982 has Jewett as the commander of a privateer.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 07:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Also which of the 20 or so Governments of 1820 ordered him there and where in his Letters of Marque is this mission?
Before you answer I've seen a copy, they speak only of capturing SPANISH ships. Jewette seized the Portuguese ship Carlota and the American ship Rampart. Neither were authorised by his Letters of Marque, he was a pirate in effect.
So does the word of a bunch of pirate count for anything?
And anyway, he arrived in the Falklands solely because he nearly wrecked the Heroina in a storm, otherwise he was headed back to BA with the Carlota. This was after 8 months of a disastrous voyage, with most of his crew crippled by scurvy.
So was he sent to the Falklands but decided to potter about the North Atlantic for 8 months or is it just a fiction?
Interestingly in his despatches from the Falklands, he forgets to mention he'd claimed them. Would he not do that if that were his mission?
More interesting, BA found out second hand through the Salem Gazette and it was published in BA as a foreign news story.
So may inconsistencies but no matter shout, bluff and bluster fills the void.
Does anyone want to know what happened to Jewett? When he was sacked in 1821 he went to Rio, offered his services to Brazil and is a Brazillian hero in the war against Argentina.
Ooops
Doesn't look like we'll get any peace until all our Natural Resources around the Falkland Islands and other South Atlantic territories are fully and comprehensively exploited. If that means getting the guns out again to deter a repeat of the 1982 Argentinian facist invasion then so be it.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 07:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BRITISH SOVEREIGNTY IS NOT NEGOTIABLE.
No I’m right as usual. The Banana committee is the Decolonisation committee of which we were discussing and I was referring to their failure to ‘decolonise’ Tokelau against the peoples will and failed miserably. In short the Decolonisation committee is bullshit and has no legal as well as moral authority to which you keep on going on about.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for your points;
1 I understand what you have written. Uti was used in the legal framework a treaty between Spain and Portugal. My point to you is it of no legal significance whatsoever for anyone else. So when you right ‘the first time Uti de Facto was legitimized into de Jure was 1750’ Well bully for Spain and Portugal! It’s got fuck all to do with international law in general and this dispute.
2 So you don’t have any evidence just what some nonsense a fascist has written in a book, which you’ve blindly accepted. I told you so. Why don’t you also tell us the crap about the Duke of Wellington too? You might as well.
3 All is very specific it means everything, not almost everything or nearly everything, but everything. I let you work out for yourself what perfect means.
4. Your basic Argentine history is wrong too. Rosas was a legitimate governor in 1849. There was a referendum. So for pity’s sake enough of this ‘de facto’ bullshit please! There was also civil unrest and wars between 1833 and 1849, that didn’t stop Manuel Moreno making protests in London, that’s nonsense. The Argentine government dropped the protest because of the convention and there were several senior members of the government that stated publically that there was no dispute with the UK.
As for the 1771 agreement. You only have to look at the wording of the Masserano Declaration to see that it is neutral and maintains the situation that existed before the Spanish attack on Port Egmont. There was no “express reservation” of Spanish rights like before. The question of the prior right of sovereignty” refers to both nations.
@155 Dab, we've been over this. UPdF was formalized into a treaty. That makes it de jure from that point forward. Treaties have force of law in Brazil too, you know.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 08:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yes, we have been over this. And you still don’t learn. The only thing the Treaty of Madrid formalised was that specific territorial situation, that is, effective possession.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_(1750)
O diploma consagrou o princípio do direito privado romano do uti possidetis, ita possideatis (quem possui de fato, deve possuir de direito)
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_(1750)
El tratado, basado en el principio de derecho romano Uti possidetis, ita possideatis (quien posee de hecho, debe poseer de derecho),
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_(1750)
The Treaty of Madrid was based on the principle of Roman law Uti possidetis, ita possideatis (who owns by fact owns by right)
And the Treaty of Madrid was annulled by the Treaty of El Pardo 1761 as if it had never existed
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tratado_de_Madrid_(1750)
see article 1
Uti possidetis juris, unlike the 1750 treaty, is not about effective possession. Why do you think it is known as UPJ of 1810 for South America and UPJ of 1821 for Central America? And it was rejected by Brazil as it took the psition that its borders should be determined by effective possession.
@194 Justin I'm sure you're well aware of the difference between a privateer vessel and a privateer human being.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 09:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Wait, actually, no, I'm not. So don't confuse the two.
As I've told you before, the government which promoted and sent him there was headed by José Rondeau. He, as a commissioned officer, had no letter of marque to which he was to adhere. His commissioned status and rank gave him plenary authority to perform enforcement actions within his jurisdiction. The fact that the vessel he was commanding was a private vessel requisitioned by the government has no bearing on his status. This is common practice even through the 20th century and into today.
For instance, are you aware that during WW2 the RMS Queen Mary was used by the admiralty? Are you now going to tell me her wartime master was a privateer and not a duly commissioned RN officer? Of course not, because that's total rubbish.
As for BA finding out “second hand”, the point is moot given that the declaration was given in BA prior to Jewett's departure. And Jewett's later career has no bearing on the fact that at the time of his declaration he was a commissioned officer with the rank of Colonel of the Army of the United Provinces
of the River Plate - per the commissioning order that I've quoted above, verbatim.
Oops indeed.
@195 Of course british sovereignty is non-negotiable, after all, you can't negotiate with something you don't have.
You see, sovereignty is a legal term, and your presence is ILlegal (the “il” mean “not”, btw). That's why you talk about 'getting the guns out', because you don't have sovereignty, which if you had, you'd not need the guns at all.
@197 Dab I know very well what the treaty formalized. I'm not talking about what it fomalized, but HOW it formalized it, which is by taking a de facto concept, and legitimizing it, thereby turning it into a de jure concept.
¡¡¡INGLESES PIRATAS LADRONES, FUERA!!!!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 09:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@196 I've never said anything about the decolonization commitee so I'm not sure that you're responding to me in the first place.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. I don't think you understood what I've written. I never claimed the 1750 treaty was of legal significance to anyone other than Spain and Portugal. Why do you keep bringing that up? It's got fuck all to do with this dispute. It's got everything
to do with Dab's statement. Are you daft??
2. What book are you referring to? Go to the national archives in Buenos Aires and look up the comissioning order yourself. What in hell are you talking about? Who said anything about Wellington in this line of discussion? Seriously, are you fucking mental? What or who are you responding to?
3/4. Now you're going to sit there and tell me Rosas wasn't one side of a civil war?
Look mate, 1850 was a treaty of non-aggression. Your lads were mucking about in uruguay and they already tried to invade BA twice in the same century. You're reading text that isn't there and giving it significance, the same as you're doing with the 1771 text, which settled the issue of British sovereignty for good and all, long before 1850.
Again you miss this because you fail to comprehend the declaration came AFTER the agreement was signed. The declaration amounts to nothing more than orders to subordinates. It is the agreement text which counts, and whereas Spain might have had a veiled reservation of Sovereignty rather than an express one, it still beats the NONEXISTENT reservation of British sovereignty in the agreement signed by both nations at that time.
The RMS Queen Mary in WW2 was a merchant vessel impressed into naval service not a privateer. I don't believe there were any privateers in WW2. So that is quite probably the worst strawman construction I've ever seen.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 09:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This does not detract from my point, that Jewett was a privateer and acting as a privateer. I knew he had a commission, though your source of that order interests me. This does not mean he was not a privateer, he was. He actually exceeded his Letters of Marque in taking American and Portuguese ships ergo his was in fact guilty of piracy.
As master of Heroina, he was acting for a consortium of private individuals, on a privateer's license issued by Rondeau. He was not acting for the state, though I acknowledge he claimed he was doing so.
Again, I note the question dodged, what does his Letters of Marque say? They do not order him to the Falklands.
Indeed oops, the fact is you're still not hot.
The QM example is that of a private vessel pressed into naval service, same as Heroina. What detracts from your point is the commission order, the text of which I'll post again for your continued enjoyment:
Aug 15th, 2011 - 09:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I hereby name don David Jewett as Colonel of the Army in the service of the National Marines, with a directorial deployment ongoing, this 15th of January, 1820.
Matias Irigogyen
Minister of War“
Go on, tell me it's false. Tell me it doesn't exist. Tell me it was never published.
The fact is that at the time of his 1820 declaration he was not a privateer, he was not acting as a privateer, and he did not read the declaration as a privateer, but under orders from Buenos Aires, after the notification of which he got underway. Hence he was not acting for a consortium of private individuals, as you say, but rather under direct orders of War Minister Irygoyen. His Letters of Marque say nothing, because they do not exist.
There is nothing to dodge.
He had no letters of marque to exceed, and as a commissioned officer in the marines Jewett had plenary authority to enforce the United Provinces' rights in its territorial waters, in which both the American and Portuguese ships were.
So come on, tell me a new fantastic tale, will you? I'm sure you're full of them. With as much hot air as you can provide, I doubt any islander will be cold this winter.
Right so I'll take #202 as acknowledgement that there Jewett's Letters of Marque did not include a commission to go to the Falklands. Seeing as you dodged the question again.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Posting the same crap is not a rebuttal.
The Carlota and Rampart were seized on the High Seas, that was piracy, an act of war if acting in the capacity of a commissioned officer.
BTW you still haven't named your source....
So where are his orders? Funny isn't it, how Dab, I and others can always back things up and you can't.
Oh and btw Jewett didn't get underway, he skulked in the Falklands till relieved by Mason as he had NOTHING to show for his privateer voyage. It was an utter and abject failure.
Oh and btw genius his Letters of Marque survive, there is a copy in the national archive in BA.
Doh!
....season with some fantasy, to the tune of “self-determination deals with territorial disputes”...
Aug 15th, 2011 - 10:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Talking of backing things up, I have yet to see anything from Alejandro to back up his assertions that the UN Charter is trumped by prior treaties which conflict with it, that self determination is not a universal right and that self determination can be limited (by a territorial claim in this case)...
“ ... As far as 1771, there are THREE documents. The agreement, and two subsequent declarations by each party. The date I'm referring to is 22 January 1771, which was a bilateral agreement signed in London on that day, which stated clearly that ...”
Aug 15th, 2011 - 10:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Utter rubbish Ailing! Best you can do? The two declarations were signed on the 22nd. Seperately.
Of course you could always produce the bilateral agreement ! But you can't can you?
A defeat for Spain ... the Spanish king even requested the English King help save his 'face'. All in the records !
And regardless of whether or not Jewett was sanctioned by BA, he did not have orders and did not have BA's authority to make any claim. And he didn't stay around long enough to make that effective! So, of no value what so ever.
Still got your bare arse in the airthen, ostrich :-)
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1834-1848/
Alejandro, it was you who started the non-self-governing decolonisation business of which is supervised by this decolonisation committee. I have on many instances mentioned its flaws.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 10:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 I’m backing up what dab is saying I’m just arguing from a different angle. He is right to say “The only thing the Treaty of Madrid formalised was that specific territorial situation, that is, effective possession” and later about Brazil “it took the position that its borders should be determined by effective possession”. In other words Possessions is about what you control not some Roman principle and also I mentioned before when BsAs got its independence there was nobody from BsAs on those islands so there was no control, let alone effective possession.
2. Dear oh Dear, the Argentine government just love people like you Alejandro. You hadn’t read the 1850 convention, now you haven’t seen alleged documents either. How do you know these people are not lying? Because they are liars. They have taken a quote by the Duke of Wellington and deliberately misquoted it. I thought you might you have know it as it’s often used by you people. Maybe that’s for another time.
3 No. I mentioned there was civil unrest. I’m saying he was the legal governor. ‘De facto’ implies he took office by force and this is not true, he was elected. Before you dig yourself a bigger whole let’s not forget about the garrison sent to the islands by Rosas in his first government. By your logic this must have been illegal as was the appointment of Vernet on the Islands by Lavelle.
4 The Masserano declaration maintains the status quo as I explained. The UK would not except the sole Spanish claim that why it was changed (they wouldn’t haven’t of bothered otherwise) and this declaration confirms this, and finished all legalites and hostilities.
As for the 1850 convention I’m quoting it directly and it’s very clear. ‘Perfect relations’ means the slate is wiped clean and there is no more disputes. End of story.
When pressed Ailing tends to refer to documents he will not produce, or tells you to do your own research. It's a sign of his youth.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 10:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Ailing -
1) you have not shown Nootka to be applicable and have been presented with evidence showing that it is not.
2) you have not shown that Uti Possidetis Juris is applicable to the Falkland Islands issue. But then you'd have to show a line of succession from Spain, to the Primera Junta, to the United Provinces and then through the various factions to finally rest with Argentina. Even though Spain refused to recognise such a country until the 1850's, not helped by the problem of quite working out what the country consisted of!
3) Dab and Wayne have made an excellent case of the 1850 Treaty which you have also failed to refute.
4) You've also failed to produce any evidence that 1771 was anything other than an embarrassing defeat for Spain which didn't afford them any advantage.
5) And finally you've failed to prove that the UN Charter is subject to a resolution of this so called sovereignty dispute.
Still got a long way to go yet lad !
@203 Since you're going to distort what I say as you do with all facts that don't favor you, I'll let you take #202 as whatever you may fancy it to mean. But in the English language, it means there are are no letters of marque, in the national archives of anywhere else for that matter, because they don't exist and they never did. The documents that do exist in the national archive are his commission and his orders, both signed by Irigoyen. My citation was the primary source which I've quoted verbatim. Are you denying this is what the document says?
Aug 15th, 2011 - 10:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Funny how your sources seem to be FI sites. Funny how mine are mostly British, with few exceptions. Would you like me to cite Fitzmaurice? Goebbels? Or perhaps a more contemporary source like Deas? Because with anyone you choose, you loose - so take your pick.
@204 “...I have yet to see anything from Alejandro to back up his assertions that the UN Charter is trumped by prior treaties which conflict with it...”
That's because my point was specifically the opposite: that there was no conflict whatsoever, and therefore the UN Charter didn't supersede.
In order for the new text to supersede the old there must be a conflict. There is no conflict. Therefore nothing is superseded and Nootka remains, to this day, in full force of law: British citizens have limited rights, Britain has no sovereignty over the islands.
@205 Sorry red, but that's the fact. There was an agreement signed in London on the 22nd, and subsequent declarations. Do the research. I'll produce if you still want me to.
And not only did Jewett have authority, but had orders in hand.
@206 No, other commentators started that in bringing up the point of self-determination. I responded to them, I never brought it up myself. What was controlled wasn't being discussed, rather the HOW that legalized such control. I have indeed read the 1850 convention and am yet to find the part that mentions the islands. How was Wellington misquoted? Civil unrest ≠ Civil War.
One of my cites was Laurio Destefani, the other was the Argentine National Archive in BA. Neither are remotely close to being of Falkland Islands origin.
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Did you fail reading comprehension at school?
So we ask for a source for this “quote” of yours and you dodge the question.
Keep on digging. You're definitely a zero not a hero.
See what I mean - doesn't produce anything. Just says 'do the reasearch'. You are full of cr*p lad!
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You cannot produce anything other than the 2 Declarations of 1771, because nothing else exists!! With the exception of correspondence of course, all of which acts against you.
“ ..... All conditions are rejected by the British Crown.
November 7th, Harris is summoned to see Spanish Foreign Minister Grimaldi, and is told that Prince Masseran has been given instructions, ” … 1st. his catholic Majesty’s desire of coming to an amicable accommodation and of preserving peace. 2nd. that his Catholic Majesty is disposed to give every reasonable satisfaction to the insult his majesty thinks he has suffered by his subjects being dislodged from Port Egmont. And thirdly that his Catholic Majesty is moreover ready to come into any method regarding the manner of giving this satisfaction, as appears most eligible to his majesty; that, however, at the same time as he agrees to these three articles, he expects, first that as he has gone so far as to save the honour of his majesty, that his majesty would also contribute to the saving his, as far as it did not interfere with the satisfaction he received…..” [Letter from Harris to Weymouth dated November 7th]....
[Nowhere in this exchange is there any recognition of any Spanish sovereignty ,although it seems that the Spanish King is keen to save face too. ] ...”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1768-1771/
You cannot produce Jewett's orders because they do not exist! Argentina has been searching for them for 178 years, without any luck.
AND nothing in the UN Charter about only taking effect if there's conflict. No qualification of any kind in fact.
You lose!
You are a loser!
Now you know why your country has never had the cojones to go to the ICJ.
Too late now of course -the islanders' are in charge of the future. Their future.
:-)
.#210
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Not quite correct, a copy of Jewett's Letters of Marque is available in the national archives. The problem is they only authorise the seizure of Spanish vessels, they say nothing about the Falkland Islands.
Thank you Justin ... I knew what I meant :-)
Aug 15th, 2011 - 11:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@209 and I'm familiar with both. Destefani correctly cited the vessel being chartered by the government, not her captain. The Argentine National
Aug 16th, 2011 - 12:01 am - Link - Report abuse 0Archive has Jewett's letters of marque prior to his 1820 commission. It also has his 1820 commission and his orders. My source is the same
as yours! Accuse me of failing to provide it and you accuse yourself as well, inasmuch as I've cited what you have.
@210 what do you want me to produce? I can back up anything I've said here. That's not to say I'm willing to blindly jump through hoops for hooligans.
Make a consice and reasonable request for a citation and I”ll be happy to provide it. I am yet to see a single citation from you that doesn't come from falklandstimeline.wordpress.com, which for purposes of this discussion are about as useful as an argentine government website.
At least I have the cojones not to make such a base citation to support my arguments - a level that you apparently have no qualms about lowering yourself to.
All mouth and no trousers :-)
Aug 16th, 2011 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0Jewett's written instructions to claim the Falkland Islands? You'd be famous ! For 5 minutes at least.
But of course Jewett's claim is insufficient, authorised or not. Turning up, claiming and leaving again just isn't enough.
“ .. falklandstimeline.wordpress.com, which for purposes of this discussion are about as useful as an argentine government website....”
Not to be taken as a compliment lol
I think you'll find Alejandro that there is a conflict. British rights to self determination would be limited by the prior treaty. That is a conflict. The UN Charter trumps the treaty. Job done.
Aug 16th, 2011 - 08:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0@183,
Aug 16th, 2011 - 09:18 am - Link - Report abuse 0Saw the pictures, yuk, definitely NOT hot. Sorry Alex.
Por mad Alex, sad really. l can't even begin to think where you got the idea that l've been out looting & burning. But if it makes you feel better, keep thinking that.
EVERYONE of your ridiculous assertions has been shot down, Alex old chap. But please, don't give up. While you are making a fool of yourself here, you're leaving someone else alone.
Let me guess, you are a typical Argentine that just has to win everytime & just cannot handle it when you lose. And lost, you have, in a big way.
Let me summerise it for you, amigo:
1) You HAVE NEVER owned the Falklands.
2) You DO NOT NOW own the Falklands.
3) You WILL NEVER own the Falklands.
4) WE DO & we will exploit ANY resources there & it's got NOTHING to do with you or your silly country.
ls that clear, mad Alex? So keep your thieving hands off OUR land.
198
Aug 16th, 2011 - 12:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I said sovereignty was NOT negotiable.
Picky? - Perhaps but like the war in 1982, you foreign types started it.
Not really interested in all your made up history, suffice to say the Falklands Islands are in the UK's possession by popular consent of their inhabitants and you know what they say about possession.
Seems there could be quite a bit of oil coming our way, how do you feel about that? Does it make you angry? Does it make you feel like getting your guns out again like your Facists did in 1982? Do you think you might get lucky?
Aljandro - You did bring it up in #89. Nobody wrote about non-self-governing-treaties before then. Self determination has nothing to do with that. In fact it would only be self determination that could make take them off that list as the Tokelau incident proved. That and a much needed reorganisation.
Aug 16th, 2011 - 03:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for the 1850 treaty whether you do not understand what the word ‘All’ and ‘Perfect’ means is of little importance, as everyone else certainly does, including your government. In fact the word ‘All’ is used in your constitution to confirm people rights. It’s impossible to argue against as you have proven.
Wellington has been misquoted many times including here on Mercopress in a recent article by Andres Cisnores. You can read about it here.
http://s1143.photobucket.com/albums/n635/wayne-bird/?action=view¤t=DKW1.jpg
Civil unrest covers civil war too as Rosa was the governor elect at that time, he was not then ‘de facto’ as I’ve already explained and is regarded as such by all today. It’s a pointless nonsense argument anyway for two reasons. Firstly inter-governmental treaties are not subject to what is and what is not considered ‘de facto’ governments as demonstrated by your government when they signed the peace treaty with the Pinochet regime in the 80’s. Secondly since 1853 there has been thousands of Argentine politicians and to my knowledge not one has rebutted the treaty and most historians regard it as one of the nation’s most important treaties. Furthermore Acquiescence is an important part of international law. Treaties are not subject to change through convenience
Keep quote your lying authors. You have no solid evidence and we all know it.
@214 RedRuffian, you know very well Jewett had a scurvy problem and was relieved by Mason, another duly commissioned officer. The question regards a continued presence of official authority which exists all the way up to 1833. I wouldn't be famous for producing Jewett's orders because they are a well known historical fact duly published by the contemporary government and kept in the national archives.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your unilateral knowledge betrays you, even more than limiting your “citations” to a FI site. Only someone with a complete lack of knowledge regarding the subject would espouse such self-evident idiocies. Go look it up yourself, you can get it from Argentina's national historical archives review, Azuay section, Issue 5, pp. 120-121.
@215 “British rights to self determination would be limited by the prior treaty. That is a conflict.”
OK JA - show me where the UN text specifies that the right to self-determination supersedes prior territorial disputes, and I'll retract my statement.
@216 - Oh Isolde-my-mouth-for-ten-quid, I didn't realize you were such an authority on male beauty!! Well if I was in the market for idiotic punks like yourself, then I guess I'd be in real trouble.
Funny how my assertions are “shot down” with idiotic posts that have nothing to do with what I've said, like my pictures. Resorting to personal attacks perfectly shows the degree of idiocy espoused by you and “the lads”. You have no facts to counter with, so you make fun of my photos. Tell me again, little boy, when do you graduate from grammar school?
With every post you further demonstrate how pathetic you are. Don't expect Argentina to cry for you, either. The malvinas islands are not your land, they have not been your land since 1771, and they will never be yours again. YOU GAVE THEM UP - so tough shit, little boy. Now go sit in the corner and cry like the little bellend that you are, and let the adults talk.
JUA!!! ISOLDE YOU VERY STUPID YOU KWNO...YOU HAVE NO FACT, AND ATTACK PERSON....VERY LIKE CHILD...GROW UP.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 04:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@218 Wayne, my mention of “non-self-governing” had nothing to do with Wellington or treaties. It had to do with inclusion on the UN list of NSGT. You again bring up Tokelau and I've already made the point that Tokelau does
Aug 17th, 2011 - 04:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0not encompass a dispute between two nation-states over a non-contigous stretch of territory.
If you want to assign a certain meaning to 1850 and be blinded to the contemporary events that led to the text in the first place, be my guest. As I said before every action of that government lacks force of law, Rosas was defeated and even if the 1850 text had specifically mentioned the islands, it would still have required the victorious Lavalle government to ratify its validity after Rosas' defeat - this never happened.
Furthermore, Rosas was indeed de facto, he was one side of a civil war, and he lost. May I remind you that in 1816 it was the United Provinces that declared independence, not just Buenos Aires. Uruguayan independence, legally speaking, was an act of secession, and Lavalle sought to preserve the union. Thus, although Rosas may have been democratically elected, his government was completely illegal. Rosas lost the war. Rosas fled to England. His every action in government has ZERO FORCE OF LAW, lest it be ratified by a subsequently restored de jure government.
Notice the consistency of my position - this applies to ANY such action, including the Pinochet treaty.
What authors am I quoting??
I didn’t say your mention of “non-self-governing” had anything to do with Wellington or treaties. The islands are not on that list because it’s a disputed territory, and most of the territories on that list are not disputed. There are of course many disputed territories that were/are not on there.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 06:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Your argument about Rosas and the treaty are incorrect. The treaty was signed in 1849 and ratified in 1850. There were a lot of conflicts during Rosas’ time. I’ve never heard any suggestion that he was not the lawful governor of Buenos Aires in 1849/50, and that province had responsibility for Argentine foreign affairs. . Let me remind you that Argentina’s 1816 inheritance claim is that the islands came under the jurisdiction of BsAs, before. So in 1849 it was legally the claim of the BsAs province too. What happened after is of no significance. Had the result of that war been an independent BsAs it would be the ‘nation’ of BsAs disputing the claim now.
As for 'stored de jure government’ that is nonsense. A new constitution can amend domestic law how it likes but Inter-governmental treaties are a totally different matter. Argentina does not call the shots here, that is self righteous manipulation of facts and the Treaty can only be changed by mutual consent. Not only did this not happen there was no protest to it or to the UK over the Islands sovereignty. As I said the New Argentine government accepted it by non-protest. To argue against it will get you nowhere. In fact contrary to what you write the acceptance of Rosas actions like the 1931 Pacto Federal in an international dispute means the 1853 government did accept his authority and not just for Argentina’s convenience.
As for the Pinochet treaty it was ratified by the Chilean Military Government Junta as Legislature in 1985 and it was not conditional to a new Chilean government. Just like the 1850 treaty. De facto or De Jure it makes no difference, Communist goverments are De facto unless elected too. N M room!
So then why do you keep bringing up Wellington as a response to a comment about him that I never made??
Aug 17th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I doubt Rosas' treaty was ratified in 1850 given the state of civil war between the provinces at that time. Buenos Aires was one side of a civil war. It assumed responsibility de facto, clearly, there was another side to that civil war that did not agree. Sure the uti inheritance implies governance from Buenos Aires - BUT, the act of independence itself was from the Provinces United in Congress. Buenos Aires was for secession, it went to war over it, and it lost. It is exactly the same as Jefferson Davis in the US Civil war. The actions of its governors during its time in rebellion were void of any legal status by virtue of being in a state of rebellion against the union. I'm not implying any “storage”, the territory as it was in 1816 IS the nation-state. And you're quite right that had the result been favorable for Rosas, it would be a different story today.
But Rosas lost. No treaty can be ratified by provinces during civil war, that much is obvious. The 1850 treaty took place outside any national legal framework and was not ratified or legitimized after restoration. This is no self-righteous manipulation of facts, the facts are clear: there is a civil war, a belligerent side fighting for secession against union signed a treaty, that side lost, the treaty wasn't ratified post-bellum, and as such it's not worth the paper its written on. You think a country fresh off settling a civil war is going to focus on foreign occupations straight away? It took what it took to address the issue, 30 some odd years in this case. Civil wars tent to take people's attention off marginal subjects, that does not amount to capitulation.
De jure and De facto only makes no difference to someone who doesn't care whether their actions are legal or not. Mostly, that means criminals. Argentina doesn't call the shots because you hide behind British guns and use the threat of force.
OK JA - show me where the UN text specifies that the right to self-determination supersedes prior territorial disputes, and I'll retract my statement.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 07:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Article 103 of the United Nations Charter
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail.”
Well I think that's pretty clear. If the obligations under any prior treaty conflict with the UN Charter, the Charter wins.
In this particular case any treaty limiting self determination would be in conflict with Article 1 of the UN Charter. The UN Charter wins. Self determination cannot be limited, especially not by territorial claims. I think you'll find ICJ case law supports this.
Jewett's orders do exist but they make no mention whatsoever of going to the Falklands to claim them; the only purpose of the voyage was to attack Spanish ships. Not only that but his commission of 15 January 1820 resulted from the request of Patrick Lynch.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 07:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thats in the National Archives http://www.mininterior.gov.ar/archivo/archivo.php?idName=arc&idNameSubMenu=&idNameSubMenuDer=
It wasn't until the American schooner Rampart was seized and sent to Buenos Aires did they even become aware that Jewett was in the Falklands. With the Rampart he sent a long report detailing its activities and the strange thing is he made no mention whatsoever of his claiming the islands. Jewett's resignation had nothing to do with scurvy, he was abject failure as a privateer and caused nothing but grief for the United Provinces.
Thats also in the National Archives.
Strange that, there was no mention of it in Buenos Aires until the publication of a copy of Jewett's declaration appeared in the Salem Gazette. Mason was never aware of it either. It wasn't reported till the Argos of Buenos Aires printed it on 10 November 1821.
Go figure.
You might like to look at Article 103 of the UN Charter, that pretty much kicks any attempt to limit self-determination rights by territorial disputes squarely in the balls. And I quote:
“In the event of a conflict between the obligations of the Members of the United Nations under the present Charter and their obligations under any other international agreement, their obligations under the present Charter shall prevail. ”
The 1850 Convention of Settlement was ratified and all Argentine protests over the Falklands stopped.
BTW you're still not hot.
@225, Ok Justin so now the story changes and Jewett did have orders. Glad to see you move towards reality! But you're clearly not there yet.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 08:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Jewett's orders not only exist, they specifically state he should effect claim, and contemporary documents prior to the expedition back this up. For instance, Lynch's letters in offering his vessel to the government for use specifically refer to Jewett by his proper rank. Before signing Jewett's commission and orders, Irigoyen also noted the need for an official presence following independence, because British fishing enterprises were:
“not the least consideration for halting their activities to allow for reproduction, for not only do they kill so as to make their quotas but also effect destructions upon their departure, so as to ruin those still in their labors and in this method preventing their concurrence to sellers’ markets. The harms which are effected to the nation from this conduct are privied by the most common reason and, should no measures be taken regarding these procedings, the marine and amphibian beasts will altogether come to a conclusion…”
Curiously enough, the same national archive records a British fishing sloop in 1813 asking permission from Buenos Aires to hunt seals on the island. I wonder why, if Nootka after all did nothing to reaffirm the fact that Britain no longer had any claim to sovereignty after 1790, would they do such a thing.
As for hotness? 8.0 Justin. Top 20% is just fine by me - not so plain as to obfuscate my noble genes, not so fancy as to be considered a pretty boy. My porridge is just right and plenty of jeune filles have lined up for a taste, so if you want to criticize you'll have to do better than just a link.
Besides - I have nothing to hide, do you? Let's see YOU post a picture on that site and do better (although I'll suspect you'll just ask ”the lads” to vote for you)...
BTW you're still not right.
JA you quote article 103?? This isn't the challenge that was given to you.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 08:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The challenge that was proposed was for you to find UN text that specifically states “the right to self-determination supersedes prior territorial disputes”.
NOT that there is a presumption that the UN supersedes prior treaties. We all knew that. You were supposed to give a specific citation.
Article 103 states that where their is a conflict, between the charter and an international agreement, “the charter prevails”, obviously - and the challenge was for YOU to prove that there IS a conflict...
...in this case, a conflict between 1 - disputed territory sovereignty and 2 - the right to self determination.
You haven't yet demonstrated that there is a conflict between a territorial treaty that self-determination could prevail over. There are two issues: 1. territorial claims, and 2. right to self-determination.
You were challenged to give a UN citation that the two are one and the same issue, instead of separate issues, so one could supersede the earlier instead of being just 1. sovereignty and 2. self-determination and the two having nothing to do with each other.
You didn't meet that challenge. If you want to then you have to answer what specifically was asked of you. If you do, I'm sure Alejo will be gracious enough to admit it.
You asked ‘How was Wellington misquoted?’ #208 after I mentioned how he if often misquoted and I gave an example.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 08:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The Convention of Settlement was signed on 24 November 1849 and ratified by both sides in Buenos Aires on 15 May 1850. The US comparison is false as the Union never lost the capitals (Washingtons) jurisdiction just what it controlled in all which was regained. That’s not the same thing.
BsAs jurisdiction is down to who controls BsAs regardless. Rosas election victory meant he was the legal governor of its jurisdiction. The granting of the sum of public power to Rosas in 1835 established a dynamic whereby leaders (caudillos) from the hinterland provinces would delegate certain powers, such as foreign debt payment or the management of all international relations (including treaties) to the Buenos Aires leader. The Argentine Confederation thus functioned, albeit amid ongoing conflicts, until the 1852 and Rosas exile. Don’t forget that BsAs was not reincorporated into the Argentine Republic on December 17, 1861. The 1854 constitution asserted the sovereignty of Buenos Aires, including its right to engage in its own diplomatic relations too. So you could even argue that far from being de facto he was the people’s choice and toppleg illegaly. Today’s government have given you a public holiday on 20/11 because his actions too.
Also if a nation at civil war is going to focus on inter-governmental disputes in can after for sure. Also Don’t forget Moreno was representing the Argentine conferation in London too on behalf of Rosas.
“De jure and De facto only makes no difference to someone who doesn't care whether their actions are legal or not” Yes like Communist China for example on human rights. Another recognised government.
Wayne, nobody but you has brought up Wellington. I meant how he was misquoted in this thread. Nobody has misquoted him here because no one here brought him up, other than you. You keep responding to me as if I had and I never did. What you're saying makes no sense.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 09:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And what you say about Rosas makes no sense either. You're saying that an electoral victory in an extra-judicial status counts. Perhaps if he had won, but he lost. Everything that happens in that extra-judicial status, including elections, have no force of law. You're just trying to make me repeat myself.
Let me restate: the entire period of confederation, 1835-1852, was a period of civil war. The confederation was one contingent in that war, the unitarians another, and they won. Rosas lost. Every single action of every single government of the confederation, whether democratically elected or not, is without force of law. EVERY. SINGLE. ACTION.
Foreign treaties not ratified by the provinces after the restoration of de Jure government under Lavalle are also without force of law. Rosas had NO LEGAL AUTHORITY to act, in any capacity, for any reason. His alliance to caudillo warlords didn't legitimize him. The election you cite didn't legitimize him. In fact, NOTHING, not even being “the people's choice” could possibly legitimize him, or his actions, because he came to power when Buenos Aires was in a state of REBELLION, which by definition is extra-judicial.
Don't forget that 1861 and 1854 comes AFTER 1852. AFTER Rosas' defeat. AFTER the Unitarian victory and restoration of lawful government.
Also, I fail to see how China's human rights violations have any bearing on the subject.
And the 11/20 holiday celebrates the 1845 defeat of yet another British invasion attempt, this time under the command of Samuel Inglefield. As is plain to see, Britain's warmongering attitude in all of South America during the 19th century leaves no doubts about its designs of conquest, and its 1833 invasion is no different.
-May I remind you that in 1816 it was the United Provinces that declared independence, not just Buenos Aires. Uruguayan independence, legally speaking, was an act of secession
Aug 17th, 2011 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No, it wasn't. It was an act of cession. UP independence, however, legally speaking, definitely was an act of secession
-His every action in government has ZERO FORCE OF LAW, lest it be ratified by a subsequently restored de jure government.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TpI-AAAAcAAJ&dq=intitle%3Acoleccion%20intitle%3Ade%20intitle%3Atratados%20intitle%3Acelebrados%20intitle%3Apor%20intitle%3Ala%20intitle%3Arepublica%20intitle%3Aargentina%20intitle%3Acon%20intitle%3Alas%20intitle%3Anaciones%20intitle%3Aextrangeras&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q&f=false
Official Publication (page VI)
Published 1863 (during Bartolomé Mitre's term)
Convention (page 173)
-But Rosas lost. No treaty can be ratified by provinces during civil war, that much is obvious.
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TpI-AAAAcAAJ&dq=intitle%3Acoleccion%20intitle%3Ade%20intitle%3Atratados%20intitle%3Acelebrados%20intitle%3Apor%20intitle%3Ala%20intitle%3Arepublica%20intitle%3Aargentina%20intitle%3Acon%20intitle%3Alas%20intitle%3Anaciones%20intitle%3Aextrangeras&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TpI-AAAAcAAJ&dq=intitle%3Acoleccion%20intitle%3Ade%20intitle%3Atratados%20intitle%3Acelebrados%20intitle%3Apor%20intitle%3Ala%20intitle%3Arepublica%20intitle%3Aargentina%20intitle%3Acon%20intitle%3Alas%20intitle%3Anaciones%20intitle%3Aextrangeras&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q&f=false
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=TpI-AAAAcAAJ&dq=intitle%3Acoleccion%20intitle%3Ade%20intitle%3Atratados%20intitle%3Acelebrados%20intitle%3Apor%20intitle%3Ala%20intitle%3Arepublica%20intitle%3Aargentina%20intitle%3Acon%20intitle%3Alas%20intitle%3Anaciones%20intitle%3Aextrangeras&pg=PR6#v=onepage&q&f=false
Where do these constitutions say that ratification by the provinces is needed?
-The 1850 treaty took place outside any national legal framework and was not ratified or legitimized after restoration.
Yes it was, see above
-This is no self-righteous manipulation of facts, the facts are clear: there is a civil war, a belligerent side fighting for secession against union signed a treaty, that side lost, the treaty wasn't ratified post-bellum, and as such it's not worth the paper its written on.
The civil war was not a secessionist civil war. It was between Unitarians and Federalists over what type of state the UP was going to be. Both sides claimed to be acting for the whole UP not some part of it seeking to secede. Buenos Aires did secede, but that was in 1852 after Rosas had been defeated.
Erm, Hermes, I think I answered the challenge. If you don't get it then you are obviously very challenged yourself - in another way.
Aug 17th, 2011 - 10:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0BTW, I've asked Alejandro in the past to demonstrate exactly how the UN has limited the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination and he has simply ignored my challenges.
At least I answer his.
Any attempt to limit the right to self determination is in conflict with the UN Charter, not to mention the ICCPR and ICESCR, which flow from the Charter. All three ratified by Argentina, not to mention the UK, which is also bound by them. Furthermore, the right to self determination has been referenced in several UN Resolutions which directly concern or specifically mention the Falkland Islands.
The challenge for you is to demonstrate how Argentina could possibly benefit from ANY treaty to which Argentina was not a party and which is in direct conflict with the provisions of the UN Charter. Because that's in essence is the basis of Alejandro's argument.
@230: Dab, the oriental band was a province that was part of the United Provinces, declaring independence WITH THEM IN CONGRESS. Unitarians believed this was an act of secession. That's why they went to war. The form of government was a sticking point, but certainly not the only one, nor the main one. Now, what is this you've posted and what relevance do these links have?
Aug 17th, 2011 - 10:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0None:
1. The first link you posted was a collection of treaties. Not an act of Congress.
The hint to that fact is that the first treaty dates from 1811, when there was no such thing as the Argentine Republic. So, right away, we see the title is wrong. This is a collection of official publications, republished into a single tome by Bernheim & Bonco press. Now it might be an “official publication” of Bernheim & Bonco, but certainly not of the government.
Ratification means act of congress signed into law by the president. Have you presented that? No, and you'll never find it, because it doesn't exist.
2. As for the next three postings, all three are the same 1994 constitution, the latest amended version of the constitution of 1854, while the treaty you quote is dated 1850.
So, obviously, more rubbish. BUT, since you're so keen to know what the exact provision is, here:
The previous legal jurisdictional document was the constitution of 1826, which states the Executive power (or, Rosas, if he had been de Jure), had power to:
“...Art. 89: make treaties of peace, friendship, alliance, commerce or any other; BUT THESE MAY NOT BE RATIFIED WITHOUT THE APROVAL AND CONSENT OF THE SENATE”
There being no lawful congress in 1849/50, the nation being in an extra-judicial state of civil war, the senate gave GAVE NO SUCH CONSENT; not has any subsequent lawful congress given such consent after the restoration of constitutional government in 1852 or the subsequent constitutional reform of 1854.
So try again.
@231 no Wayne I think you trying to put words in others' mouths because it's you that makes the characterization that “the UN has limited the Falkland Islanders' right to self determination”
Aug 17th, 2011 - 10:30 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I read back and Ale never said this, what he said is the same thing as i said, that self determination is a separate issue unto itself.
It is you that are mixing self-determination with other things. You are making a connection that doesn't exist, and then based on this connection that you came up with you say there's a conflict, and because there's a conflict the UN charter wins.
Except there is no conflict: YOU made it up. Self determination has no limitation. Self determination is one, specific, concept by itself. It is not tied to territorial sovereignty claims, with are a completely separate, specific, concept by itself.
Were it not so, there would not be a need for resolution 2065 (XX) calling both parties to negotiation, because if self-determination was the same issue as territorial sovereignty, such that self-determination as a UN right trumped previous treaties, then there wouldn't be a need for any such resolution.
So, in the UN's eyes, the two issues are distinct and totally separate from each other, and YOU are the one who's putting them together. You were challenged to come up with a UN text that proved they were the same, and you failed.
SELF-CORRECTION & CLARIFICATION:
Aug 17th, 2011 - 10:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“Dab, the oriental band was a province that was part of the United Provinces, declaring independence WITH THEM IN CONGRESS. Unitarians believed this was an act of secession. ”
I was referring to the act of the Oriental Band's departure from the union.
“As for the next three postings, all three are the same 1994 constitution, the latest amended version of the constitution of 1854, ”
and
“Don't forget that 1861 and 1854 comes AFTER 1852.”
CORRECTION it was the constitution of 1853, not 1854. Wayne referred to it as such in #228 above and I made the mistake of repeating it mindlessly.
Which is, of course, the very method by which idiocies such as the ones “the lads” espouse on sites like these are spread: wrong facts being repeated ad nauseam, while no one stops to check and see if they're true, and before you know it the islands are rightfully british. Complete nonsense.
Morning Ailing - still not quoting Jewett's order to claim the islands I see!
Aug 17th, 2011 - 11:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0At least you are in the right area. Check out the comments from the Beagle arbitration of 1979. It referes to Uti Possidetis Juris as being an intra-South American doctrine -
” .... the Parties were agreed in principle that their rights in the matter of claims or title to territory were governed prima facie (and if no recognized basis of derogation existed) by the doctrine of the uti possidetis juris of 1810, This doctrine—possibly, at least at first, a political tenet rather than a true rule of law—is peculiar to the field of the Spanish-American States whose territories were formerly under the rule of the Spanish Crown, —and even if both the scope and applicability of the doctrine were somewhat uncertain, particularly in such far-distant regions of the continent as are those in issue in the present case, it undoubtedly constituted an important element in the inter-relationships of the continent... “
Now, as a binding decision, subsequently ignored by Argentina, and as the 5 panelists came from the ICJ the case will have a oersuasive effect on any future decisions. Good by Uti !
AS for your sovereignty issue v. self-determination, well the former is no bar to the latter in international law. There have been a number of cases of independence taking place in spite of counter claims by other Nations. Typcally I don't immediately have them at hand, but I'll get back to you.
The Charter rules!
The 'critical period' for any analysis of Argentina's claim comes down to the period 1816 - 1833. No good just saying that a record exists, you need to prove it. You would also need to prove that Jewett did enough to indicate an assertion of authority over the islands.
And have you worked out yet why the British have gone to aquisitive prescription from 'first discover'? You need to if you are ever going to grow into a lawyer and lead your country into the ICJ :-)
Morning all, islands British?:-)
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!