MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
UK reaffirms Falklands’ sovereignty: ‘they are British and not negotiable’
The UK has no doubts about Falkland Islands sovereignty: ‘they are British and they are not negotiable’, said on Monday a Foreign Office spokesperson in reply to a Sunday statement from the G77 plus China calling on Argentina and UK to resume sovereignty negotiations over the South Atlantic Islands. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesSidelines ??
Sep 27th, 2011 - 05:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0Some say 'insist', some say 'urge', the official web site of the G77 says nothing at all! Maybe something got lost in translation?
Others say - Sod Off ! (no problem with translation I hope :-)
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/argentine-belligerence/
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/2011/09/27/argentine-belligerence/
the world but Europe and of course the UK say the UK is ignoring UN principles and resolutions.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0the rest of the world must be daft if they don't interpret the UN charter in the same manner as the UK...
so aside from calling the rest of the world ignorants, in their arrogance they now downplay the legitimacy of the Argentine claim by alleging its a political campaign strategy.
someone please make the UK world leaders de-facto! they see and interpret stuff in ways everyone else fails to see. what a bunch of illuminated individuals!
It's sad Argentina abandoned its old policy of trying to slowly build trust and relations with the islanders after the war with Britain. The problem is the issue is such an irresistible weapon for politicians to use during election campaigns, because it's the one thing that unites the entire nation. It would be a waste for the political class to keep the dispute in the background, when provocative language, threats and talk of injustice can rally the support of the nation. Ultimately though, the issue is just another example of short-term decisions taken by leaders in Argentina hurting the longer-term potential of a fruitful future.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:25 am - Link - Report abuse 0So unfortunate Argentina was never willing to go the distance with the Mr. Smoothie tactics of maintaining communication with islanders, trying to help them achieve objectives and build links. Who knows, if Argentina had persisted with relationship building then people living on the islands may today have cared at least as much about avoiding offending neighbouring Argentines, as they do the British 6,000 miles away. That in itself would be some measurable progress to build upon, while admittedly still falling way short of Argentina's ultimate objectives.
Trousers - Argentina does not have a legitimate claim.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:35 am - Link - Report abuse 0Therefore it is easily ignored.
And your view of the world is overly simplistic! I can only assume that you are young ;-)
@4. my view is not overly simplistic: 130+ countries signed a statement urging the UK to negotiate. 130+ countries that owe nothing to Argentina nor are part of any fancy union with them. the UK is a permanent member of the UN security council and uses its position, as well as its privileged standing with the United States to disregard international requests...
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0there is nothing “simplistic” about that. it is what it is: a disgrace!
Troneas,
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0Whenever politicians involve themselves in an issue, it naturally becomes political and politicised. That's not to say there is no validity to some Argentine claims. I often find myself wondering how rigorously the British would have defended the islands and its people, if there were not strong suspicions the island was swimming in oil that might one day become extractable. There was also the case that Thatcher and her unpopular government needed a good war to play on nationalistic pride as much as Argentina's repulsive military junta. Whatever the truth, I definitely do not believe the British arrived at its position through strong morals and respect for the wishes of the islanders.
The sad reality is though the moment the invasion took place, finding a solution became a lot more complicated and difficult. Most British people knew nothing of “The Falklands/Las Malvinas” before the war took place. So it would have been much easier for the British to negotiate a settlement with Argentina, because most of Britain would probably have agreed with the ridiculousness of the notion of a wind-swept island 6,000 miles away being declared British. But after the war views hardened. Imagery of fallen war heroes, the injured, and handicapped has that impact on a population.
Given the way the war was sold to the British people, respecting the rights of islanders to self-determination became an unshakeable government position. Any politician now who dares to attempt to negotiate a settlement with the Argentine government would be treated as a traitor.
132 countries 'SIGNED' nothing !
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Acclamation is the word used .... you should check it out !!
Politicians like 'wriggle' room.
Simplistic !
No Troneas, only Argentina and Spain interpret the UN Charter in the manner you do. The precadents in the ICJ directly contradict it - see the Kosovo judgment for example.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:03 am - Link - Report abuse 0No one is calling the rest of the world ignorant, the fact that Argentina tries to hijack every possible forum and get a statement calling for negotiation by boring everyone to death until they get what they want, well thats your problem.
Much like the time they hijacked the International Forum on Venereal Disease, demanding that the meeting state Argentina was responsible for Venereal Disease in the Falklands.
Ricky - what about 1770 and 1833 - not much of an incentive about oil then !!
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1768-1771/
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1768-1771/
Amusing that you think we are 'brainwashed' :-)
From an Argentine that's brilliant lol
@6 what you say is very logical and i agree with your interpretation of the matter. I have always condemned the 1982 war and I believe most Argentines do.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0But the war doesn't excuse the British to do as they please nor does it eliminate the claim. The islanders talk about the war as if they lived through WWII when not one native was harmed.
Argentina wants to NEGOTIATE. They are not asking for a blank check. I perfectly understand the Britain has pride and many britons were killed in that war. But I also understand that a mutual agreement, which includes some sort of compensation for the war, their losses, and the question of the sovereignty could bring the problem to an end without harming the British pride.
Troneas,
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina does not want to negotiate. It wants utter capitulation to its demands. The only acceptable outcome is the British give in. A blank cheque is exactly what is demanded - the result is pre-determined and the “negotiations”.
The British did negotiate and tried to find a way to satisfy Argentine pride, the result was Argentina invaded. They've tried to find a compromise and mend fences. And Argentina has torn up every agreeement.
The only thing you can think of is sanctions and cutting air links and trying to use force. You won't go to the ICJ as you'll lose and instead you make yourselves a pain in the arse by whining about the Falklands at every International forum.
You say you're prepared to negotiate, what concessions is Argentina prepared to make. Name one.
Saying you'll respect their way of life, they can keep their citizenship or any other carefully rehearsed platitudes are not concessions. Nor do people believe for one second that Argentina would keep its word, seeing as you and your friends are always denouncing the islanders as squatters and illegal (those are just the polite names).
No one trusts you, you've destroyed any hope of trust with your actions. You became irrelevant.
“The islanders talk about the war as if they lived through WWII when not one native was harmed.”
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0Other than the two that died I assume? - or the hundreds who were locked up in Goose Green for months - or the families that returned to their homes to find the Argentines had ransacked them and defecated all over them - or....................................
@12 Those two died because they've joined the British troops thus became active soldiers. Most kelpers went on with their normal lives, though.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The ones who were locked up, were part of an internal resistance and troublemakers. So what do you expect?
Troneas.... you truly are a brainwashed fuckwit ... who feeds you diegos this utter crap?
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:11 am - Link - Report abuse 0Troneas- you are indeed anAxxxxxxx of the first order and a thick liar! Thise locked up in GooseGreen were civilains some over 70 years old others under 3 years old - some resistance!! - But yes - as a result of that ordeal, today those still alive HATE everything Argentinian in the world!
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:15 am - Link - Report abuse 0Those killed - were also women- innocent civilians!
@10 I think the one thing that unites the British and Argentine people is our contempt for politicians. People in Argentina have known for a long time the widespread corruption that goes on in government, the waste, the wealth that is routinely stolen from the people. British people have finally started waking up to this unpleasant reality in their own country - in the past decade or so. It happens in the UK too that the people are deceived, robbed by a political class, special interests get special favours at the expense of ordinary people.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:17 am - Link - Report abuse 0Why is this important? Because we're all relying on these selfish, greedy politicians to negotiate a settlement. We're asking them to stand up and do the right thing, when almost every other decision they take in government is directly opposed to that basic requirement.
I'm not making any excuses for anyone here. I'm just pointing out in a world that lacks many principled politicians, you are not going to find a British prime minister with the courage to stand up and say 'I'm going to negotiate a peaceful solution with Argentina, because I believe it's the right thing to do.' He will always be more worried about protecting his position of power, his privilege, than ever taking a courageous decision that could easily cost him his job.
Almost all of us know the truth about politicians. And yet we blame each other throwing around unattractive labels like brainwashed, pirates and thieves, while the political class carry on getting away with their own crimes against the people they claim to represent.
I dearly wish a solution could be found to the dispute. I hate that successive Argentine governments keep using it as a political weapon in its elections. I hate that the British government claims some self-righteous position, when everything else they do in the world shows its true colours. But maintaining the status quo is probably strongly in the interests of both our governments, than negotiating an amicable settlement. So sad.
Ricardo et al, you don't understand the British.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0A history lesson. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office did think that retaining windswept islands 8000 miles away made no sense, they made a very cynical calculation and concluded dumping the islands onto Argentina was a win-win situation. They got the headache of maintaining the islands off their hands and dumping “worthless” islands on Argentina was worth improving relations.
What both Britain and Argentina alike forgot, was the islanders had been living under a colonial regime, and both arrogantly assumed that they could decide what was right for the islanders without consulting them. Except the islanders got wind of it and organised a Parliamentary lobby which stymied the plans of the FCO.
The FCO continued along the same line, colluding with the Argentine Government to make the islands dependent upon Argentina, hoping to induce the islanders to believe they were better off with Argentina. They weren't consulted it was imposed upon them by arrogant FCO officials who thought they knew better.
And still the islanders stymied FCO plans, negotiated with the view that the FCO knew better than they. The trouble was the policy encouraged Argentina in viewing the islanders as irrelevant. They weren't they were central and the FCO couldn't ignore them.
You're wrong that Thatcher wanted a war, the British made a number of major concessions to avoid war. It does not make sense as every military expert told her that once taken by Argentina it would have been virtually impossible to retake them. So her choices were a militarily risky operation with limited prospects of success or negotiate. By and large she chose negotiate until the military needs became imperative. Argentina approached negotiations as a delaying tactic till winter made the military option impossible.
The British position stems from morals and the wishes of the islanders, whatever the FCO might wish, the people will not abandon the islanders.
13 Troneas
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0They were killed because Argentine invaded their home land. Get the message Troneas we don't like fascists!
@13 Trousers
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0115 people, including 43 children and 2 people over 80 years old. These are your “internal resistance and troublemakers”
Held in a building, initially without bedding or food, and with only two toilets. A building not marked (neatly breaching the Geneva Convention) as containing civilian detainees, that didn't have any shelters in the event of artilliery or air attack.
@17 There are a number of documented views in the lead up to the military invasion. While I agree it is true the British wanted to negotiate a settlement with Argentina to improve relations, it is disputed that Thatcher wanted to avoid war at all costs. It might not make sense to you to believe Thatcher would ignore the advise of military experts, but she was that kind of conviction politician. She implemented a lot of policies, triggered a lot of domestic events that so-called experts told her were unwise, unwinnable positions for her government. It is not unreasonable to believe she might have helped provoke a war that suited her own needs of the time.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0The British position you speak of stems from the war with a vicious military junta at the time, a military that was sickeningly killing off its own people who it had any reason to believe might be dangerous dissidents. Before that war, most British people had never even heard of the Falkland Islands. If the invasion and subsequent war had never taken place, most Britons wouldn't even batter an eyelid if the government announced a negotiated settlement with Argentina.
I think it's tragic that any potential for progress in improving relations between two nations continues to be thwarted by the decades ago actions of an out-of-control, careless, vicious military junta.
I don't for a moment believe the islanders should have Argentine rule imposed on them through any settlement between Argentina and the UK. I doubt the Argentines would make those demands either. But I do believe if the islanders wish to live under British rule, with the benefits and protections that go with it, they should be prepared to move to Britain.
Ricardo,
Sep 27th, 2011 - 11:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0What makes sense is the historical record. Thatcher did negotiate and made major concessions in doing so. Check out Perez de Cuellar's statements; he was amazed at just how far the British were prepared to compromise to avoid a war. Thatcher also delayed military action as much as possible and continued to offer terms long after the start of hostilities. To have lost the war would have killed her political career and buried her party and it was very much a risky undertaking with a high probability of failure.
The claim that she “provoked” the war is patently absurd, it just doesn't make sense. Your claim that the British wouldn't have batted an eyelid doesn't make sense either, as soon as the papers got wind of the Government doing a deal with the military dictatorship to offload the islanders onto Argentina they'd have been crucified. Indeed, Ridley was crucified in Parliament at the time.
And your closing line illustrates your mentality, they have to accept a deal over Argentine rule or move. They don't live under British rule, they live under their own elected Government. Its their home, their land, their birthright and you have no right to impose your will upon them. You speak of the mentality of the Military Government, what is the difference in your position; you're still claiming the islanders have no say in their own future. What you're speaking of is 21st Century colonialism with Argentina as the coloniser.
Ricardo that's exactly what Argentina is demanding. 100% sovereignty over the islands & the removal of any Islanders that do not agree to switch nationality. The Islanders don't wish to be ruled by Britain or Argentina they are their own entity & only remain aligned to Britain for defense. Why should they be forced to move just because some corrupt politicians in Argentina wants the oil under their feet.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 11:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0@12 Those two died because they've joined the British troops thus became active soldiers. Most kelpers went on with their normal lives, though.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 12:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The ones who were locked up, were part of an internal resistance and troublemakers. So what do you expect?
You Argentine fools continue to believe your governments propaganda machine that is still alive and kicking almost 30 years after the Junta was inventing lies to distract the people from all the murders and disapperances of anyone who threatened them. Lies about the lawful Sovereignty of the Falkland Islands and the conduct of the war in 82 continue to be repeated which really gets my goat!
I know the true history of the the war in 82 because I was there as a paratrooper and fought on Mt. Longdon with 3 Para. I was wounded and have visited the islands several times since 1982.
The conduct of the 'Officer Class' in the Argie military was nothing short of disgusting. They treated the common soldier like crap, as indeed they did the civilian population. What was clear from the early part of the invasion, as they never expected the British to come and help the islanders, were preparing to make them 'disappear' just like many of the Argies back home had if they did not comply or leave for dear old England.
Three civilians were sadly accidently killed in Stanley by friendly fire, all the civilians were locked up at Goose Green in terrible conditions and were not set free until liberated by 2 Para after their epic battle. Many Argie soldiers were starving and scrounging or stealing food to survive when huge supplies were held in storage in Stanley. Many of the prisoners of war were better treated by their captors than by their own officers.
The islanders are not stupid, why in the name of God would they want to be part of a nation like that of Agentina then or indeed now?
Even if the UK cared little for the islands before the war or not is irrelevant as Argentina invaded British territory. End Of!
There was a settlement of the dispute. In 1833. Confirmed by the Treaty of Friendship in 1849.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 12:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Job done !
But Argies don't like sticking to agreements - do they ?
The deaths of hundreds of British & Argentine soldiers, sailors & airmen settled this dispute in 1982, all the other arguments or settlements, based on truth or not are now obselete. You do not throw the lives given in sacrifice of your country away and then just say, 'ok we won the war, but, hey, here, have the land our boys died for anyway because we don't give a damn for them'...come on, get real you idiots...do you really think anyone would commit political suicide like that? Just take it on the chin and accept that the Falkland will always be British for as long as the people who have populated the islands for generations want to be so. CDK should be concentrating on much more important things and stop getting everyone wound up. There is no argument anymore, its over, ended, finished, gone, so shut the f**k up!
Sep 27th, 2011 - 12:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I do wish they would stop saying
Sep 27th, 2011 - 01:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The G77 plus China”
China is a full member of the G77, nothing more and nothing less.
She has the same rights as Haiti, Somalia, Argentina, or any other struggling developing nation, and should not be thought of as a mere add-on.
Interesting how as every day goes by the indoctrination of these argies never cease to surprise us all,
Sep 27th, 2011 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0All you ever get is, is our fault, never once accepting one basic very important fact,
[if Argentina had not broken international law, and selfishly and illegally invaded an innocent little peaceful island, that posed no harm or threat to anyone, let alone Argentina,
We would not be here now, would we?
This sadly also seems to pass most of the world by, by default Argentina should not be aloud to spread disgusting lies, around the world, they peddle their lies to anyone that will listen; they volunteer to join any and all organisations, just to spread their vile disgusting rubbish,
And sadly as I have said before, the islanders should be counteracting these claims to the worlds press, and be fully backed up by the British government,
When we just say nothing, but the same old thing, the impression this gives is fundamental on how other perceive the British,
I believe these lies should be counter acted, , but either way, the more argentine pushes the worse it will get, Argentina wants the Falklands by any means it can, by using skulduggery corruption lies and deceit to get them,
But in reality, all they may be doing is pushing and sliding its way to war,
Only then, perhaps they may regret their foolishness, but by then it may be too late,
All Argentina will succeed in doing, is destroying herself, with this obsession that can only lead to a violent response,, just an opinion .
.
@10 Tronearse. You should try looking up “uti possidetis”. It is a principle in international law that territory and other property remains with its possessor at the end of a conflict.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 01:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In 1982 you started a war. Neither Britain nor the Falkland Islanders wanted one, but you started it anyway by invading territory that didn't belong to you.
The thing is that 1982 was a turning point. You started a war and you lost. The UK, or Britain, and the Falkland Islanders possessed the territory when you lot surrendered. Irrespective of anything that happened between 1690 and 1982, although that time period provides plenty of justifications for the Falkland Islands, AND South Georgia, AND the South Sandwich Islands to be British, the result of the 1982 war is enough. You lot have had NO legitimate claim since June 1982. There is no reason for Britain or the Falkland Islands to go to the negotiating table. There is NOTHING to NEGOTIATE. Although I could understand Falkland Islanders wanting to make you publicly apologise for invading their country, and for trying to persuade the world that they are a non-people with no rights.
Here's a thought for you. In 1939 Britain “stood alone” against your pals and role models, the Nazis. I know that, without the United States, it would have taken much longer. But we would still have won. If you can be bothered to research the actual facts, by December 1941, the tide had turned and Britain had started to defeat the Nazis in most battles. Without the Yanks it might have taken until 1955 or 1960, but we would still have won. Because Britain NEVER gives up. “We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender”.
Argentinian lost the war. Then Falklands ti is British. There are don´t site to Argentinos. Ouside Argentinos-
Sep 27th, 2011 - 01:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So in other words, we can't have the Islands back? :-)
Sep 27th, 2011 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Words enough :-)
Sep 27th, 2011 - 02:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Artillero601 you never had them in the first place. An invasion consisting of hired mercenaries headed by a pirate that invaded an existing British settlement on behalf of a private company before Argentina even came into existence does not count.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 02:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Artillero, apart from 74 days of occupation in 1982, the islands have never been Argentine. I believe the Royal Marines and Paras did return some .50 and 7.62 ammo back in '82
Sep 27th, 2011 - 02:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@28. uti possidetis is the prime excuse of imperialism.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 02:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@33
Sep 27th, 2011 - 02:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thank you for the clarification Justin , I didn't know ;-)
when you say .50 is what 12.7 mm? where did you send them? I have not received anything yet. lol!!
A large number of FN MAG and .50 Brownings were found at Goose Green, we did our level best to return the ammunition to the FAA by mounting them on RN warships. Paras and Marines being honest chaps did their level best to return the ammunition to its former owners on Mount Longdon, Mount William, Mount Tumbledown and Two Sisters. As its former owners didn't seem to want them any more, sadly we dumped a lot in the sea off the Falklands.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 03:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina did ask for some Mercedes G Wagen back as they carelessly left them in the Falklands with the keys in the ignition but as they hadn't actually paid for them and didn't have a receipt we declined. Mercedes declined to support them until the British paid for them but the MoD ordered spare parts through a London dealership till they got short of them.
We did find some Pucara as well but they were broken when we found them.
15 Islander1 I'm sure that you know by now that the islanders were killed by the indiscriminate bombardment of the British navy(HMS Avenger)
Sep 27th, 2011 - 04:02 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The women’s names do not appear on the memorial of St. Paul’s Cathedral though.
@36
Sep 27th, 2011 - 04:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I really didn't know that. I thought you were joking .
#37 Margot, they were killed when the Royal Navy were attempting to bombard an Argentine military position, in an area believe to be closed to civilians. Under the Geneva Convention, the occupying power is obliged to make provisions for protection of civilians.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 04:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/385ec082b509e76c41256739003e636d/6756482d86146898c125641e004aa3c5
Argentina made no such provision. The resonsibility for civilian deaths in the Falklands War is down to your forces.
#38 that was a joke, unless you're kidding me
@39
Sep 27th, 2011 - 04:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0:-))
Geneva Convention?
Sep 27th, 2011 - 04:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dont count with the Argies
On the night of 13-14th June, the men approached the target area, bypassing the berthed Argentinean hospital ship Bahia Paraiso. As they did so, the hospital ship turned on its searchlights, spotting the raiders and opened fire with everything they had,
@37,why would their names be on there?it is a memorial to the armed forces who lost their lives,there is no list of British civilian casulties lost in WW11 on a memorial anywhere either.But the islanders are listed and remembered on the SAMA garden of rememberance
Sep 27th, 2011 - 05:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0(( 41))
Sep 27th, 2011 - 05:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0These sentence structure is from India origin UK citizens use style .
(( 28)) You too.
just the more royalist than king behaviours .
@39
Sep 27th, 2011 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just to let you know that I placed a call to the Logistic Division and I was told that the “titles” of those Mercedez are available upon request just in case you all need them. All paid in full BTW :-)))))))
#10 Troneas
Sep 27th, 2011 - 06:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The islanders talk about the war as if they lived through WWII when not one native was harmed.”
Look at the conditions in which the inhabitants of Goose Green were forced to live for over month.
Remember how people were beaten up by the Argentine troops because they listened to the BBC on the radio, and how some were forcibly evicted from their homes, and how artillery guns were placed next to civilian houses?
And when the Argentine troops left shit on the floor of the houses and the post office? I can train a dog to behave better than that.
These sentence structure is from India origin UK citizens use style
Sep 27th, 2011 - 06:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Praise indeed from you ed CASE
(44) Artillero601
Sep 27th, 2011 - 06:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Thanks for debunking yet another of Mr. Justin(hishead)Kuntz'es “small convenient lies”.
Your inmortal soul may have a chance after all :-)
as long as the argentines can only talk talk.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 06:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and the british can back their claim to protect the falklands, then just leave the worrying to the argentine,
as talking is all they can do,
unless they know something we dont ?
Ah yes, Justin was proved wrong in one of those all important Falklands debates! Well done Argies, that must be Falklands/Britain 73,983 and Argentina 1, in terms of factual correctness!
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Just reading some of the Argies comments regarding the war, it is disturbing how many inaccuracies that seem to appear in their knowledge regarding the Falklands War and of course the Falklands in general.
It's nice that Think rubs in the fact that Justin might be wrong about some cars, but what about his countryman's belief that the civilians that died were considered “troops” or the so-called “Goose Green resistance”, some really wide of the mark beliefs regarding significant events. Think tries to come across as some kind of intellectual who considers all of the evidence and comes to a final conclusion, but in essence he is as indoctrinated as Marcos and Troneas.
I wonder how many nails does it take to securely close a coffin? Because Think's hypothetical Falklands coffin seems like it needs hundreds of thousands. Just a thought.
#44 The Argentine Army paid the bill? Mercedes are cheeky buggers then, as they also asked the British Army to pay for them.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Think, just fuck off, you are legend in your own underpants.
TWIMC
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:27 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Yet another example in this very thread of Justin(hishead)Kuntz'es “small convenient lies”.................
He says at (39):
“#37 Margot, they were killed when the Royal Navy were attempting to bombard an Argentine military position, in an area believe to be closed to civilians.”
As every British squatter in Malvinas knows, the lovely elderly ladies were killed, by a British shell, in their very own home.................
.........and the amazing thing is, we still blame the Argentines for it! How unreasonable is that, when the Argentines were nowhere near.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Oh wait a minute, Mr M is telling me that the entire country was crawling with Argentines. Doh Think, you nearly got me again.
But again, if Argentina did not illegally invade this innocent little island
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0NO ONE would be dead would they.
@50
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Freaking Germans !!
As every British squatter in Malvinas knows, the lovely elderly ladies were killed, by a British shell, in their very own home
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0A lecture from a Argie on killing our own
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/3673470/Argentinas-dirty-war-the-museum-of-horrors.html
Mercedes-Benz G290 2.3 (petrol)
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This G-Wagen was captured by Gurkhas during the Falklands campaign in 1982 and given to No. 18 Squadron.
It had a 30mm cannon shell hole in the bonnet.
It was brought to the UK by sea and then moved by Chinook helicopter to RAF Gutersloh in Germany.
Here the shell hole was repaired, it was given British Forces Germany licence plates and used as a squadron transport and hire vehicle, still in its Argentinean paint scheme.
A neighbouring squadron hijacked the G-Wagen and returned it with a new tiger stripe paint scheme. This was not to the liking of 18 Squadron, who re-painted it in black and red, the squadron colours.
When a new gearbox part was needed it transpired that the G-Wagen was unpaid for and Mercedes-Benz requested the vehicle back. As spoils of war it was not available for return. Mercedes-Benz refused to supply parts and spares had to be obtained elsewhere.
When 18 Squadron returned to England, the G-Wagen proved impossible to register with the DVLA (Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency) as it had no importation documents. It had always been the intention to donate the G-Wagen to the RAF museum and so it was moved to Cosford, again by Chinook, on 14 June 2001.
@34 Tronearse Unfortunately, for you, it is international law. And as far as it being the prime excuse for imperialism is concerned, you should consider that, had you won, the Falkland Islands would have been yours.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Except that you never had a chance. Because Britain is so much better than you tossers.
(52) Monty96
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Nobody is blaming the British troops.......... In war, sh** happens..............
, I'm just debunking another of Justi(hishead) “little convenient lies about that ladies home being ”an area believed to be closed to civilians” as he so lyingly puts it.
Best regards to Mr. M...................
Remember to feed him properly..........
Bacon, sausages and Kidney Pie will do the trick.............
Zethe, are you talking about just“one” in particular ?
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As far as i can tell they only asked once and Mercedes said no. But given that Military orders are batch orders if this one was not paid for the rest wouldn't have been either which is probably why they didn't bother asking for each and every one. They were mostly used for spare parts to keep other ones going and a few sold off to people.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 07:59 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But no, they were not paid for.
Incase you're wondering where the information comes from it's on the display board infront of the vehicle in the RAF museum, Cosford.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In war, sh** happens
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Dont the Falklanders know,what with the dirty argies taking a dump in their Post Office
, I'm just debunking another of Justi(hishead) “little convenient lies about that ladies home being ”an area believed to be closed to civilians” as he so lyingly puts it.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Obviously THINK has the Argie addition of the war diary? I am amazed at just how gullable he is and takes onboard without question and with unconditional belief, any info his own government has 'allowed' them to have. No matter how many 'facts' are given to him that dispel the Argie version of events he still holds on doggedly in the vain hope that he can't possibly be wrong because his Auntie Christina told him so...reminds me of the blind obedience of the Waffen SS. Now I don't expect him to shut up because he suddenly found the truth right under his nose, far from it, he will bleat on and on spreading the lies he has been told since he was a school boy, its not his fault, like Christ said on the cross, 'Father forgive them, for they know not what they do'.
Another fact for you to ignore Think, the British guns were in close enough range of the Argie guns to take them out for some days before the surrender. However, due to the Argies placeing their guns close to cilvilians, this made striking at them too dangerous on many occasions...hence, the three ladies that were killed...now thats the truth!
Think and Marcos- Yes it was a British shell - do you knoiw why the Navy were shelling that area close to houses? I will tell yoou:
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 01 The cowardly Argentine Mitilary Govt had placed heavy guns close to civilian houses - a clear breach of the Geneva Convention(but hell when has Argentina ever stuck to Int Agreements eh!)
2 The Int Red Cross had given out information which suggested to the British that all that west are of Stanley was empty of civilans and thus targets nearer the houses were safer.
It was of course wrong information! This was the same Int red Cross that delibveratley turned a blind eye to Arg Forces and Exocet Launchers being shipped into Stanley on a Hosptial Ship - yet another clear breach of the Geneva Convention! One wonders whose side those - so called - Int red Cross officials were actually on eh? - or the bribes perhaps they had accepted from the Arg Goivt military officials?
Dont anyone of you two twerps ever dare to imply that Argentina has any rights or claims - you lot come from a nation of 40million of who very few have any idea of what International Law and
Decency and Democracy actually mean.
Those civilians were KILLIED by the actions of your military - full stop end of.
Three ladies?
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:34 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Their names were Susan Whitley, Doreen Bonner and Mary Goodwin.
The shell that landed short hit a house in an area thought to be clear of civilians. The artillery spotter was going after senior Argentine officers in the houses nearby. Specifically Barry Hussey and Carlos Bloomer-Reeve. As it happens, in a way I'm glad they missed as Bloomer-Reeve and Hussey stand out from the crowd; the islanders here can testify as to what I mean.
Again, I'll simply point out that the Geneva Convention requires that the occupying power makes provision for the protection of civilians. There is a link above.
Think makes smart arse remarks about “lies”, trouble is the little shit does nothing but peddle lies and judges everyone else by his own low standards.
Those three died because Argentines did not do their sworn duty to abide by the Geneva Convention, they died as a result of Argentina's invasion.
Think, his ilk and his lies, his racism and his inability to respect basic human decency is beyond contempt. Trying to make capital out of this is low even for him.
TWIMC
Sep 27th, 2011 - 08:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Heavy “stuff” from (64) Islander1:
'The Int Red Cross had given out information which suggested to the British that all that west are of Stanley was empty of civilans and thus targets nearer the houses were safer.
It was of course wrong information! This was the same Int red Cross that delibveratley turned a blind eye to Arg Forces and Exocet Launchers being shipped into Stanley on a Hosptial Ship - yet another clear breach of the Geneva Convention! One wonders whose side those - so called - Int red Cross officials were actually on eh? - or the bribes perhaps they had accepted from the Arg Goivt military officials?“
Seems to be that your ”Siege Mentality” is developing into paranoia, dear chap......
I am not trying to defend the Argentinean army, however if the British knew the location, right or wrong, of whatever they wanted to destroy at that time, was too closed of the civilian population they are responsible of killing the islanders or do I have to remind you of how many weddings parties were bombed in Iraq and Afghanistan, what was the excuse there?
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Geneva what??
“british soldiers in iraq beat the hell out of innocent kids”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AhOYpy0iIz8
ICRC did pass that information to the British. And the improvised Exocet launcher was tranported to the islands on a hospital ship, the Almirante Irizar, the same ship that intervened illegally as a combatant in the SAS raid. Whether they were bribed or not I make no judgement, those are documented facts.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0My limited experience with the ICRC in Bosnia, showed the quality of the hotel they stayed in seemed to be of undue concern to them. Perhaps this colours my judgement.
A Bariloche police officer killed a 15-year-old boy running from an alleged robbery June 21 in Bariloche, Argentina.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 09:18 pm - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2011/aug/29/police-brutality-argentina-press
Last month a police eviction in the Argentinian province of Jujuy resulted in four deaths. It was reported, but coverage swiftly petered out and the general reaction was a shrug – “Yes, that happens.” Indeed it does, all the time. A recent study at Tennessee's Vanderbilt University identified Argentina as having one of the worst records of police violence in Latin America, with 8.7% of the population subjected to some form of violence and abuse by the Argentinian police forces in 2009.
I do not agree with recovery by the force of the Falkland Islands in 1982. Performed by a no-democratic government.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0But if I remember correctly the British invaded by force buenos aires 2 times (1806 and 1807 respectively).
Thankfully the world is changing, and the impunity of the old world powers, is beginning to be questioned.
Thankfully the world is changing, and the impunity of the old world powers, is beginning to be questioned,,,,,
Sep 27th, 2011 - 10:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Especially the new, wannabie powers on the bloc,
Like the territorial ambitions of Argentina perhaps,
South Georgia [south sandwich islands] [Falklands][Antarctica][chi lie perhaps]
Now that’s an awful lot of territory, for a thief to claim, don’t you think
,
I think the thief is resolved in 1833 that he wanted the Malvinas Islands to its empire.
Sep 27th, 2011 - 11:03 pm - Link - Report abuse 0And expelled the inhabitants that they were entitled under international law the islands.
Besides, it is unreasonable to think that something can claim sovereignty of this to 12,700 km / 8000 miles away.
Knickers-Arg
Sep 27th, 2011 - 11:26 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Britiah forces invaded Buenos Aires in 1806 & 1807
Argentine forces invaded the Falkland islands in 1832 & 1982
Two each eh?
You need to brush up on your history - http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/
And your international law - 8000 or 8 million, it's not unreasonable, it's irrelevant!
72 Nicolas - Argentina
Sep 27th, 2011 - 11:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Grow up!
Small minded nationalist. I wonder how many of the soldiers, sailors, airmen, police and government officials who were responsible for murdering a generation of your nations political dissidents are behind bars?
It is unreasonable to think that the Argentine government make up of 2nd and 3rd generation European immigrants should be allowed to run an independent country like your into the ground. Or that the native Indian population should be so poor, in comparison to the more recent European immigrants.
Only an insane nation would be preoccupied with fake history, that it insists happened, almost 200 years ago.
The people of the Falklands don't want to be subjected to Argentine imperialism! Comprende? Your days of jackboots are gone!
Think - no seige paranoa here! What seige? I can drink Chilean wine,eat fresh produce that arrives from 2 different nations in S America as well as from UK ,and locally grown. One thing I never have been able to tolerate though is fools and idiots who spit out lies and falsehoods - get your facts correct first - then I listen!
Sep 28th, 2011 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Everything about those events in 1982 are factual! And yes on arrival here in early June 1982 the local branch of the Red Cross met with those from the IRC and indeed they were also concerned about the state of their accomodation and chiefly where they could hire cars from to drive up to the front lines! They did not really give a damn about the civilian population!
The blood of ALL those who died in the confilct on both sides and all those who died of wounds or suicide from stress afterwards rests 100% on the Argentine Govt- and people of the day - and dont just say “it was a military dictatorship” - we all saw the pictures of the crowds and masses in the streets cheering the junta on!
Dear lost1:
Sep 28th, 2011 - 12:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0Open your eyes.
Growing up that's what we're doing as a society, claiming our rights in international organizations.
Instead you are worried because they have few ships in the Malvinas. And meanwhile exploit fisheries resources and oil that are in international dispute.
Imperialism is to ignore the 36 UN resolutions, will not be because the law is against their interests?.
Invading Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya on behalf of freedom, killing innocent civilians and appropriating their resources, and creating multi-million dollar business for invasive companies, that's not imperialism?.
regards
“We have lost the Falklands” - say top British military
Sep 28th, 2011 - 12:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0The UK needs to pour billions more into defence spending to counter future threats if the country is to avoid “expensive and possibly catastrophic mistakes” caused by under-funding, a report warns.
The report will hold weight because it has been compiled by five grandees of defence, including Air Chief Marshal Sir Michael Graydon, a former chief of the air staff, and General Sir Michael Rose, who was commander of UN forces in Bosnia in the early 1990s.
One of the report's authors said the Falkland Islands are a “plum ripe for the picking” should Argentina, with the support of its ally China, choose to contest British claims to sovereignty.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/sep/27/boost-defence-spending-lose-falklands
tick tock tick tock....
Knickers-Arg - if you have grown up it isn't very apparent. The Islanders are exporting their own fish, and hopefully soon, oil. It is not yours. That you have a complaint is not relevant. The Islanders are operating under the protection of the UN Charter. And Argentina does not have 36 UN Resoutions. There hasn't been a UN Resolution since 1988. The C24 are a discredited sub-committee of a sub-committee and what they say carries no weight at all. Even you should have worked that out after all these years.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 12:51 am - Link - Report abuse 0Fantasy - as your Government uses the Falklands to hide its internal problems, so our defence chiefs use the Falklands to bolster their argument for more money. Its called politics. Even their report suggests that Argentina would need the support of China. How likely is that ?
You can get medication for those ticks :-)
Redhoyt...you are beginning to sound ever more desperate in your replies so even you can feel the sands of time running thru your fingers...grain by grain,
Sep 28th, 2011 - 01:12 am - Link - Report abuse 0time is short,
and the forest is so deep and dark,
and I have such a long way further...
further to walk...
and alas, I am all alone.
Desperate ? lol funny. Why desperate, what we have, we can hold.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 01:21 am - Link - Report abuse 0And apparently Argentina has been around for 2000 years ;-))
http://english.telam.com.ar/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=12945:two-thousand-years-of-argentine-architectural-heritage-in-a-single-collection&catid=34:society
I assume that Telam asked Indec to confirm it's guess.
Now let's see - 1816 to 2011 = 9% inflation :-)
Not surprisingly, they have no rights. Britain flee, flee ....
Sep 28th, 2011 - 01:31 am - Link - Report abuse 0Redhoyt
Sep 28th, 2011 - 01:34 am - Link - Report abuse 0You are an arrogant and rude, a conversation can be carried out without offending the other party.
Mistake on my part, these are the resolutions: Resolution 2065 (XX) of 1965, ratified by later resolutions 1973 (3160, XXVIII) 1976 (31/49), 1982 (37 / 9), 1983 (38/12) , 1984 (39 / 6), 1985 (40/21), 1986 (41/40), 1987 (42/19) and 1988 (43/25).
I can not believe that the UN has a subcommittee discredited, is discredited because it is not in favor of their interests?.
They are also discredited orders:
- G77 + China
- Mercosur
- Rio Group
- Second Summit of South American-African
- Summit of South American and Arab Countries
- Cumbre Iberoamericana
- Peace and Cooperation Zone South Atlantic
I salute you and I forget your aggression
#79 fantazum2011
Sep 28th, 2011 - 01:42 am - Link - Report abuse 0“..even you can feel the sands of time running thru your fingers...grain by grain”
LOL...what a metaphora !! even I i start to feel scary :))
btw, you right....RedHole is a bit nervous...and it is true! this is just the beginning of the beginning ... the best is yet to come.
MALVINAS ARGENTINAS everybody knows that.....only are militarry occupied by british squatters
“Argentine forces invaded the Falkland islands in 1832 & 1982”
Sep 28th, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0British forces invaded Buenos Aires in 1806, 1807, Malvinas 1833, Paraná river 1845
@73 RedAgain trying to change history?
1820..... The government of Buenos Aires, which was officially declared independent from Spain, sent a boat to the Falkland Islands to proclaim sovereignty.
British Services information. Commonwealth facets of the Falkland Islands and Dependencies. :-)
A different view from Argentina as published in the Clarin.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 02:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.clarin.com/opinion/Malvinas-problema-islas-causa_0_559144161.html
Sorry only in Spanish
The Admiral wrote: “With our land and air forces over-committed in Afghanistan and Libya, with the defence budget shrinking, our submarine force more than halved, our destroyer and frigate force halved, our carrier force more than halved in terms of deck availability and completely discarded in terms of fixed-wing assets, it appears we can do nothing other than accede to US pressure. Surely I and some 25,000 others did not fight a nasty little war for this.”
Sep 28th, 2011 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Falklands veteran Commander John Muxworthy, of the UK National Defence Association, added: “We could not retake the Falklands. Argentina has only to seize its moment for an attack.
“The decimation of the Navy has made us impotent and put the security of the nation at risk.”
http://www.israelmilitary.net/showthread.php?t=18643
even the Israelis agree.....better start packing chey
Knickers - discredited by their failure to do their job - “ .. the dysfunctional and discredited C24 are well-known, but maybe there’s always a glimmer of hope that they’ll get past the obfuscation of Argentina’s annual input and actually recognise that their job is to assist the peoples of the Non-Self Governing Territories to determine their own futures. Not to play sovereignty politics..”
Sep 28th, 2011 - 04:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/
Marvin - still struggling with the true history I see. Jewett was nothing and achieved nothing - except to catch scurvey perhaps.
Read and learn the truth will out :-)
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/
But thanks for the reminder about 1845. It reminds of the Treaty of 1849 that settled ALL diferences. “ VII. Under this Convention perfect friendship between Her Britannic Majesty’s Government and the Government of the Confederation, is restored to its former state of good understanding and cordiality.”
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/
Reliance on your school history is a little pitiful. Try doing some serious research :-)
Redhoyt says “Reliance on your school history is a little pitiful. Try doing some serious research”
Sep 28th, 2011 - 04:55 am - Link - Report abuse 0What about the Official British history? Remember?
“Falkland Islanders have criticised the Government's official history of the 1982 war, claiming that it contains a series of ”serious“ errors which make it too sympathetic to Argentina's claims to the territory”
Ooooppssss
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/7331547/Official-British-history-of-the-Falklands-War-is-considered-too-pro-Argentina.html
And it was changed, as you know well MoreCrap, after the writer admitted that he hadn't done any original research for the period prior to 1982.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 05:38 am - Link - Report abuse 0But thank you for making my point !
Good one :-)
@72
Sep 28th, 2011 - 06:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0Besides, it is unreasonable to think that something can claim sovereignty of this to 12,700 km / 8000 miles away.
Is this unreasonable?
Isla Martín García is an Argentine island off the Río de la Plata coast of Uruguay. The enclave island is within the boundaries of Uruguayan waters
#72 Its rather unreasonable to claim the land of a peaceful island community 400 km away. Someone you've nothing in common with, who speak a different language.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 08:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0Its rather unreasonable to address them in racist language.
Its rather unreasonable to assert they have no rights, like they are Untermenschen.
And its rather unreasonable to whinge about the events of 200 years ago as if they have any relevance.
Unreasonable British my arse! You Argie cyber warriors rattling your finger sabres on your keyboards make me laugh, I don't know what I found to do to amuse myself until I began reading these comments. As for the Argentine retaking the FALKLAND Islands by force, come on, bring it on...please, I would love a second invitation to reafirm the rights of the lawful inhabitants of the islands. Remember, even with a reduced garrison on the islands and war ship capability, the forces required by Argentina to even get near the islands, never mind land on then now, would bankrupt your already skint and corrupt government. The death toll would be devastaing for you when all those medium range missiles launched from several Brithish submarines and war planes sink your ships even in their home ports, blow the crap out of your rear headquarters and then blow from the land and sky all your invading troops before they were in range of a rifle on the islands. Now if you think thats unreasonable, stop making threats you can't back up knob heads!
Sep 28th, 2011 - 09:33 am - Link - Report abuse 0Threats British Lion? It is you who are making the threats and I find your rhetoric offensive and inciteful.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 11:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0Your real enemy British Lion is your own government who is selling your military, your economy and your cultural identity down the river.
The Labour government began a process that the present government is continuing and will not cease until Britain and the British cease to exist as an identifiable cultural entity.
The truth is British Lion, is that your political classes will do the work for us - we only have to wait.
You got to love the Argentines! Moaning and whining on how the whole (so-called) Falklands “question” is unreasonable for them and how their “rights” are not considered.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 11:27 am - Link - Report abuse 0This is coming from people who were not born in the Falklands, people who dont work or live in the Falklands, people who probably have never stepped foot on the Falklands, people who do not intend ever to do any of the just mentioned in the Falklands, but they seem (with their twisted logic) have more rights than the people who do live and work in the Falklands and those who were born in the Falklands. It is just completely absurd. Putting it in perspective just proves how invalid the Argentine arguements are. It is quite laughable really.
But I have to say I love the desperation of the Argentines! Keep your lovely, illogical, irrelevant, invalid, incorrect and downright lies coming! It puts a big simle of my face.
@ 94 M_of_FI (#)
Sep 28th, 2011 - 01:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You are of course absolutely correct - less than 35% of the people presently living on the Islands can trace their ancestry further back than 1900 and indeed the majority arrived in the mid 1950's and the post 1982 period - but even those that arrived as part of the 1846 effort to establish a civilian population where in fact - retired military personnel.
And the only time I will accept the claim that the Falklands is a self governing -autonomous politcaand social entity - is when the British Queen removes her governor of the Islands and the military garrison that supports his authority.
Until then, the Faljklands remains an imperial possession of the british empire.
@95 It doesn't matter what you “accept”. It has nothing to do with you. Because? Because, in 1982, you started a war. And you lost. And international law says that, at the end of a conflict, territory and other property remains with the possessor.
Sep 28th, 2011 - 02:25 pm - Link - Report abuse 0In other words, you started it, you lost it and you lost your claim at the same time. 14 June 1982. It's over!
“And the only time I will accept the claim that the Falklands is a self governing ”
Sep 28th, 2011 - 03:04 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No-one cares what you accept. The islanders have self determination and WISH to have the queen as head of state and the military protecting them.
Just like Australia, Canada and many other nations still WISH to keep the queen as head of state. I suppose you're going to tell us that these nations are too part of the “british empire”?
96 Conqueror (#) Sep 28th, 2011 - 02:25 pm Report abuse
Sep 28th, 2011 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@95 It doesn't matter what you “accept”. It has nothing to do with you. Because? Because, in 1982, you started a war. And you lost. And international law says that, at the end of a conflict, territory and other property remains with the possessor.
Wrong again old chap - International Law actually says quite the reverse - In fact you presented your claim before the Un using that justification it would not only be immediately rejected but Britain would be prosecuted for waging aggressive war on the prcedent established by the USA during the Nurembug trials.
# 95 fantazum2011
Sep 28th, 2011 - 03:41 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“And the only time I will accept the claim that the Falklands is a self governing -autonomous politcaand social entity - is when the British Queen removes her governor of the Islands and the military garrison that supports his authority.
Until then, the Faljklands remains an imperial possession of the british empire.”
The role of Governor is purely ceremonial with no power of government with the Falkland Islands.
The only reason that the British Military has a presence on the Falkland Islands is beacause in 1982 it was invaded by Argentina, and Argentina has made it perfectly clear to the Islanders that it still has desires to annex there home. Now Argentina CLAIMS it will not use force to settle the dispute, but why should the islanders believe that. They don't which is why they are currently more than happy for the British military presence on their island.
Remember before Argentina invaded in 1982 there was only a single company of marines on the island, about 16 soldiers. It is only due entirely to the actions of Argentina that the military presence has been increased to the numbers we see today, and it is only due to the continuing stance of Argentina that the military presence remains at the level it does to this day.
Do you honestly, hand on heart, expect the Falkland Islanders to trust Argentina not to invade the second the British Military presnce is removed.
What has Argentina ever done to encourage trust on the part of the islanders? Can you state 10 things? How about 5 things? Hell how about 1?
And when the Falklanders want independance, if they ever do, if they want as an independant nation for Britain to maintain a military presence in the Islands that is entirely their business and nothing to do with Argentina, or for that fact any other country in South Ameria, or anywhere else in the world.
93 Fantazumo2011
Sep 28th, 2011 - 05:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Threats threats threats...that is all I hear from the Argentine comments with buckets full of holes that hold no water with threats to break agreements, threats to damage trade with fishing, oil exploration and tourism, threats threats threats! All backed up by lies, lies lies, don't worry about what our polititians are doing, you should be inward looking and be very worried about your own as they have more practice at lies and corruption than just about any other nation on the planet. Our National identity is strong, our military is still the best in the world (even when smaller) and our cultural values are still admired the world over. Oh, sorry you found my comments offensive and incitful, I was simply stating facts that it would be foolish for Argentina to think about retaking the Falkland Islands by force, even when the military are under pressure with other commitments such as Libya and Afghanistan...as we now have state of the art 21st century weapons that do not need to even be based on the islands. And when I say 'bring it on', I mean, do you dare? I doubt it as I said before, I am a real warrior...not a cyber warrior all puffed up and yapping on and on about things that happened hundreds of years ago when it is recent history and the there and now that count.
#100
Sep 28th, 2011 - 06:09 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Big Cat !!
you came to wrong place ,you had to go to your home Africa !!
BUT
i can't know if you escaped from cage !!
ALSO
few chuckled chickens can not be satisfying meal for you !!
Pfffffffffffff, what wierd geezers!
Sep 28th, 2011 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I really do feel sad, that trying to tell the truth, to indoctrinated people, is going to waste, they just have no concept what so ever, of what is right, and what is wrong, shame on your government to indoctrinate its own people into believing lies, and untruths,
Sep 28th, 2011 - 07:23 pm - Link - Report abuse 0One basic fact, that stands out, so that even a simpleton can understand,
As to why you think the British Sovereignty over the Falklands is wrong, yet you’re Sovereignty
Claim over the arctic seems to be ok,
You, claim Britain as an imperialistic country with colonies,
But are actually stopping one of them from exercising that very right, to become independent ,
You demand countries like Britain should give up all colonial land,
yet Argentina herself, wishes to colonise the Falklands, and the Antarctic, and south Georgia, and the south sandwich islands, if you indoctrinated fools cant see the truth now, then you will never see the truth, till its to late, you claim peace, yet are dragging the UK to a violent response,
Hypocrites by the bucket loads,
One then has to come to the conclusion just who is the indoctrinated, fools, she who says it, or you who follow it ??
.
Red, 1820..... The government of Buenos Aires, which was officially declared independent from Spain in 1816, sent a boat to the Falkland Islands to proclaim sovereignty.
Sep 29th, 2011 - 12:06 am - Link - Report abuse 0British Services information. Commonwealth facets of the Falkland Islands and Dependencies.
Not is a text school Argentine, is English :-)
But thanks for the reminder about 1845, I think we forget past 2 treated 1823 and 1825.
Try doing some serious research of the laws. ;-)
Malvi,
Sep 29th, 2011 - 01:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0It's you who should do some serious research of the law
1) A declaration of independence does not by itself establish sovereignty over anything. It must be accompanied by establishing control over territory and recognition by other states, particularly the metropolitan state. Only the territory over which control has been established becomes part of the new state. If secessionists only ever establish control over half a province, then the other half does not become does not become part of the new state. This is logical. If the secessionists have not established control, then they have not wrested sovereignty from the metropolitan state.
Jewett's actions were legally irrelevant since neither the UK nor Spain had relinquished their claims and Argentina had not yet established any control over them.
This is what international law says about recognition of a state:
”Recognition of a state does not necessarily entail recognition of all the territorial claims made by that state. But in every case recognition or acquiescence by one state has little or no effect unless it is accompanied by some measure of control over the territory by the other state; failure to protest against a purely verbal assertion of title unsupported
by any degree of control does not constitute acquiescence
Argentina did not exercise any control either in 1823 or 1825. There was no one from Argentina in the Falklands at the time.
The followings is FUNDAMENTAL
Sep 29th, 2011 - 06:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0The civilian population were NOT expelled from the British Falklands in 1833, only some 26 United Provinces military who had landed illegally a few months before.
UN Charter: To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and SEF-DETERMINATION of peoples,
UN Resolution 1514 (XV): ALL peoples have the right to SELF_DETERMINATION; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development
The FALKLAND ISLANDERS decide what their interests are.
“Our position on the Falklands is well known. We have no doubts on our sovereignty over the Islands”, said the FCO spokesperson. “It is based on the right to self determination, which means that as long as the people of the Falklands want to remain British, we shall support that position”.
Thank you very much
Nicely put Dab.
Sep 29th, 2011 - 08:41 am - Link - Report abuse 0Couple more from 1960 Ed -
” December 15th, UN Resolution 1515 recognises the sovereign right of States to dispose of their own wealth and natural resources.
On the same day, UN Resolution 1541 sets out the principles, “.. which should guide Members in determining whether or not an obligation exists to transmit the information called for in article 73 of the Charter of the United Nations… -
Principle IV – Prima facie there is an obligation to transmit information in respect of a territory which is geographically seperate and is distinct ethnically and/or culturally from the country administering it…
Principle VI – A Non-Self Governing Territory can be said to have reached a full measure of self-government by”
(a) Emergence as a sovereign independent State;
(b) Free association with an independent State; or
(c) Integration with an independent State.”
And 1962 - 1962 – December 14th, UN Resolution 1803 recognises a State’s permanent sovereignty over its own natural resources.
[” ... resolution 1515 (XV) of 15 December 1960, on the sovereign right of States to dispose of their own wealth and natural resources and resolution 1803 (XVII) of 14 December 1962, on States’ permanent sovereignty over those natural resources. The further Declaration on the Establishment of a New International Economic Order and the related Programme of Action (resolutions 3201 (S-VI) and 3202 (S-VI) of 1 May 1974), and the Charter of Economic Rights and Duties of States (resolution 3281 (XXIX) of 12 December 1974) are demonstrations of the prophetic quality of resolution 1514 (XV) in providing an inevitable legal linkage between self-determination and its goal of decolonisation, and a postulated new international law-based right of freedom also in economic self-determination.” - (Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples - Edward McWhinney)] ...”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1960-1966/
# 102 Big Cat
Sep 29th, 2011 - 10:22 am - Link - Report abuse 0use your mental not claw !
almost all these comments made by merely 1/2 persons
becouse
as you seee that mostly comments styles are same and complementary
going on ....can each different person write each such comments ??
not possible ...!!... there are no any commentators from Europe here ..!!
Hello Dab,
Sep 30th, 2011 - 01:33 am - Link - Report abuse 01) Pardon? Almost from the time of independence Argentina acts took jurisdictional to the islands.
England ¿exercised acts of government? where?
2) Since his retirement in 1774, England never made a claim of sovereignty. Therefore we do not claim anything.
“Jewett's actions were legally irrelevant since neither the UK nor Spain had relinquished their claims”
3) If existed a claim why he did not in 1823 and 1825?
So how is it that England did not protest against these acts?
“and Argentina had not yet established any control over them.”
And what was the control of England?
1820..... The government of Buenos Aires, which was officially declared independent from Spain in 1816, sent a boat to the Falkland Islands to proclaim sovereignty.
British Services information. Commonwealth facets of the Falkland Islands and Dependencies.
The Republic (Argentina) was in some danger of collision
with the United States, because of a U.S. warship destroyed a facility owned by the Republic, one of the Falkland Islands. The Republic asked
satisfaction and the United States appointed a special envoy, but the negotiations are not reached successful completion. The envoy requested and obtained their passports. The government of Argentina accused him of having gone to hinder the negotiations. . . and declared the determination of assert their power and rights to the Falkland Islands. . ”.
The Annual Register, London
The Annual Register at that time did not think like you!
Thanks for your opinion. regards
Right again Marvin - “ .. 1774 – On January 5th, Francisco Gil de Taboada y Lemos becomes the Spanish Governor at Puerto Soledad.
Sep 30th, 2011 - 05:05 am - Link - Report abuse 0In February the Lord Rochford writes to Ambassador Grantham, in Madrid, about a proposed evacuation of the Falklands, “ …as a matter of small consequence, that, in order to avoid the expense of keeping any seamen or marines at Falkland’s Island, they would be brought away, after leaving there the proper marks or signals of possession, and of its belonging to the Crown of Great Britain. As this measure was publicly declared in Parliament, it will naturally be reported to the Court of Spain; and though there is no necessity of your Excellency’s communicating this notice officially to the Spanish ministers, since it is only a private regulation with regard to our own convenience; …… it is neither more nor less than a small part of an economical naval regulation.”
The garrison departs, leaving behind a Union Jack and a lead plate stating -
‘ Know all the Nations, the Falkland Islands, with its ports, warehouses, landings, natural harbours, land and coves belonging thereto, are of exclusive rights and ownership of his most sacred Majesty George III, King of Great Britain. In testimony whereof, placed this plate and the colours of his British Majesty left flying as a sign of possession by S.W.Clayton, official Commander of the Falkland Islands. 1774 A.D.’
1775 – Britain claims sovereignty over South Georgia following the first landing by Captain James Cook. ..”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1772-1822/
Jewett' was nothing, not worthy of complaint. Besides, as Britain didn't recognise the United Provinces till 1825, there was no-one other than Spain to object to!
Jewett had no orders, made no settlement and effected no authority. You need to read the Islas de Palmas case 1928.
No special envoy from the USA - just Baylies !
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1772-1822/
You don't learn do you ?
Do some reading :-)
Was in some danger of collision
Sep 30th, 2011 - 06:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0with the United States, because of a U.S. warship
Broke his moorings and pulling the United States
Into a collision with the argentine mainland,
The Republic (Argentina) asked/demanded,
satisfaction and the United States, having no more gunslingers..
The government of Argentina accused him lying,
The Annual Register tombstone
The Annual Register dodgy city
nice fantasy, whens part [2]
for only when it suits you does the truth sound like a story .
Let the People of the Falklands decide their future free from hostile and absurd territorial claims.
Sep 30th, 2011 - 09:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Argentina grow up........ for your own democratic evolution. Learn from your history. Don't return to it.
Argentina ........................ estamos en el 2011.
YOU HAVE NO RIGHTS UNDER OUR CONSTITUTION YOU ARE PIRATES, ILLEGAL ALIENS, SUBJECT TO SUMMARY JUSTICE!
Sep 30th, 2011 - 11:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0We do not care about your rights. Get off our farms!
“it is neither more nor less than a small part of an economical naval regulation.”
Oct 01st, 2011 - 02:08 am - Link - Report abuse 0The great British lie. Were to go to war and then leave some of the richest regions in the world.
Whaling region par excellence. With whale oil lit European cities.
Economic reasons? A big lie.
”The garrison departs, leaving behind a Union Jack and a lead plate stating “
Lead plate? Then the Spanish can go back because they left their lead shield. It's ridiculous.
Do not forget that the British withdrew with the Spanish in the islands.
”1775 – Britain claims sovereignty over South Georgia following the first landing by Captain James Cook.”
The end of James Cook with the Treaty of Nootka.
Besides, this is irrelevant without occupation (English law)
“Jewett had no orders, made no settlement and effected no authority”
1820..... The government of Buenos Aires, which was officially declared independent from Spain in 1816, sent a boat to the Falkland Islands to proclaim sovereignty.
British Services information. Commonwealth facets of the Falkland Islands and Dependencies contradiction?? :-)
@112 U.K. los hechos del pasado afectan nuestro presente y tal vez el futuro
@113 DESIRE THE RIGHT ;-)
Regards
The marks and signs Britain left were appropriate for the time. Spain left similar marks and signs, and yes - Spain could have gone back! Not ridiculous. Perfectly legal!
Oct 01st, 2011 - 02:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka does not apply. South georgia can hardly be called 'adjacent' to anything!!
Jewett had no orders to claim or settle the Falklands - FACT!
What he did, in any case, is insufficient for sovereignty (Islas de Palmas 1928).
Argentina has NO claim.
You need to do a lot more research :-)
112 Generalissimo. You are optimistic!!! the Argentines don't know their own history; they still believe San Martin crossed the Andes on a white horse.
Oct 01st, 2011 - 03:02 am - Link - Report abuse 0115 Redhoyt. You are quite correct!!!!
“The marks and signs Britain left were appropriate for the time. Spain left similar marks and signs, and yes , Spain could have gone back” U.K. attention . ......Spain can return by the signs left on the islands.
Oct 01st, 2011 - 04:00 am - Link - Report abuse 0Nootka is applied. The British could only disembark temporarily.
“Jewett had no orders to claim or settle the Falklands”
British Services information says otherwise. :-)
U.K. has NO claim my friend...
@116 You are optimistic!!! the Argentines don't know their own history; they still believe San Martin crossed the Andes on a white horse.
Very very wrong.
a) Nootka did not apply to the Falklands at 400km away, so how the hell could it apply to South Georgia?
Oct 01st, 2011 - 05:47 am - Link - Report abuse 0b) Nootka was, in any case, a deal between Spain and Britain - nothing to do with Argentina!
c) What British Services information ? Where? Who? What is you evidence? You could be famous. Your Government has been searching for those mythical orders for decades. No trace. Nothing - because there were none!
“ .. 1820 – March 21st, the Buenos Aires sanctioned privateer, Colonel David Jewett, in the Heroina, owned by Patrick Lynch, sails in pursuit of Spanish prey... On July 27th Jewett attacks the Portuguese ship Carlota which is en-route to Lisbon. This is regarded as an act of piracy.
October 27th, the Heroina arrives in the Falkland Islands after losing the Carlota in a storm. Jewett’s ship is in a poor condition, with more than 80 of the 200 crew sick or dead from scurvy.... On November 6th, Colonel Jewett suddenly announces that he has a commission from the United Provinces to take possession of the Islands. He gives a letter containing the claim to James Weddell, a British explorer/seal hunter on the brig Jane ... 1821 - At the beginning of February, Colonel Jewett prepares a 13 page report about his journey for the authorities in Buenos Aires, but makes no mention of his claim of the previous November. He also asks for a relief as he is also now sick with scurvy... [Some texts claim that Jewett and Mason were Governors of the Falkland Islands in 1820/21 however there is no record of any such title being officially given to either man. There is also no evidence of Jewett or Mason attempting to exert any authority over the numerous whalers and sealers that used the islands as a safe harbour. No settlement or marks of sovereignty were left behind. ]..”
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1772-1822/
Prove me wong !!
Yes, Nootka applies to the Malvinas Islands.
Oct 01st, 2011 - 04:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You forget that the islands were occupied by the Spanish. It is a recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands.
The British could only disembark in South Georgia temporarily.
Oh I almost forgot ...
It is strange that in a treaty drawn up by Britain do not to mention his alleged rights over the Malvinas Islands. Again, there was no protest by the Spanish presence.
So in 1790 Britain had nothing to do in this part of the world.
Parliament London...... 25 July 1848......................................
I am of the opinion that this useless possession is returned to Buenos Aires Government that justly the claim.
Sir William Molesworth
More evidence Red? :-))))))
Malvi,
Oct 01st, 2011 - 05:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“To take what is perhaps the most frequently employed of these terms, namely ”adjacent to“, it is evident that by no stretch of imagination can a point on the continental shelf situated say a hundred miles, or even much less, from a given coast, be regarded as ”adjacent“ to it, or to any coast at all, in the normal sense of adjacency, even if the point concerned is nearer to some one coast than to any other.”
And you miss the point entirely. If the WHOLE of Falklands were Spanish before 1816, they were still Spanish in 1816 because Spain had not ceded them to Argentina, nor had Argentine established effective control over the WHOLE of the Falklands. The same in 1820 when Jewett landed, in 1824 with Areguati's failed settlement attempt, in 1825 when the UK recognised Argentina, in 1826, in 1828, in 1831, in 1832, in 1833, etc, etc, etc
U.K. attention . ......Spain can return
Oct 01st, 2011 - 07:10 pm - Link - Report abuse 0So Spain can return to conquer Argentina, what a fool
You forget that the islands were occupied by the Spanish. It is a recognition of Spanish sovereignty over the islands///////////////////
Does this indoctrination of yours, then excepts that as the roman empire occupied most of Europe
Then by your own definition Rome, [Italy] has claims over most of Europe,
Now as spain, were occupied by the Romans [ ‘Italy]
It is a recognition of roman sovereignty over the Spain,
Your logic is as backwards and stupid as your education by indoctrination,
And the world laughs,
@120 It is not necessary to discuss adjacent or not adjacent. The islands were occupied by Spain.
Oct 01st, 2011 - 08:08 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“If the WHOLE of Falklands were Spanish before 1816, they were still Spanish in 1816 because Spain had not ceded them to Argentina”
This means that the islands were not British......true?
“nor had Argentine established effective control over the WHOLE of the Falklands”
The british...... had effective control of all islands in 1774, 1778, 1780, 1790, 1800, 1806, 1807, 1810, 1816, 1820, 1823,1825, 1831, 1833, 1840, etc, etc, etc.????
I'm sure that most of the islanders do not know the version of Hispanic - Argentina history.
If you and I can talk about these issues, how can is possible UK refuses to do so?
Regards, Dab.
@121 You did not understand the discussion, read it again.
the only version we need, is the truth,
Oct 01st, 2011 - 08:13 pm - Link - Report abuse 0the islands are british,
and you cannot have them,
so you will just have to carry on talking,
Molesworth was an MP - evidence of nothing but his personal opinion!
Oct 01st, 2011 - 11:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0What occurred between Spain and Britain is irrelevant as the political tenet of 'uti possidetis juris' does not apply to the Falkland Islands. Even so - Nootka did not apply, for the reason given by Dab and because in 1790, the British still had title to the Falklands. Spain never possessed or occupied South Georgia.
Before 1774 Title had been effected by control, it did not have to be maintained for the title gained to be retained.
In either case, and excuse me for repeating myself, no 'uti' therefore what happened before 1816 is irrelevant for any discussion between Argentina and Britain.
And no, Britain is not obliged to discuss the matter.
117 Malvinense 1833. Sorry not wrong. I know what my grand daughter is being taught at school and I am shocked; just talk to the average Argentine and they know nothing of their history
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 02:28 am - Link - Report abuse 0(125) Tim
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 10:32 am - Link - Report abuse 0You say:
”Just talk to the average Argentine and they know nothing of their history.”
I say:
The key word here being ”Average”………..
Just talk to the average British and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Canadian and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Danish and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Estonian and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average French and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average German and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Hungarian and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Italian and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Japanese and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Korean and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Lebanese and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Mexican and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average New Zealander and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Omanian and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Portuguese and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Qatari and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Russian and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average South African and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Thai and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Uruguayan and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Vietnamese and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Yemenite and they know nothing of their history.
Just talk to the average Zambian and they know nothing of their history.
Last but not least…..
Just talk to any American and they know nothing of their history.
In some areas of the the North, the 'average' Brit will struggle with the concept of 'talk' !
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 11:13 am - Link - Report abuse 0Still - Fourth Committee next week.
Will they or wont they ??
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/02/fourth-committee-to-consider-the-falkland-islands/
Don't read it think - no lie but a definite 'lean' :-)
Think (#126) seems to find the Wwwwworld alphabetically challenged.
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 12:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0I know Western Samoa and West Germany have mutated, but wwwhat’s wrong with us Wanstonians, Wavelandinas, Wendlandians, Westarcticans, Wirtlandians, Wyians, and us members of the Whangamomona Republic?
Don't you know about our history? -
- Wwwwe are pretty average, but wwwwe do!
Just because wwwwe stutter occasionally doen't mean you should ddddismiss us.
And I'm Mercian .... first :-)
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 12:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0126 Think (#). You are quite correct the key word being average, though in the UK I haven't had problems about chatting on historical matters, but in Argentina unless you are chatting with someone like Marcos Aguinis or the late Felix Luna or my late friend Emilio Manuel Fernandez Gomez de Pomar you can find yourself talking to a blank set of eyes. The real Argentine history is highly interesting, not what they teach kids in school (though I have heard there is a move to modify this) which is all fantasy and the forefathers of the country are painted as demi Gods, when in fact they were quite normal humans with all our foibles and faults.
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 01:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As you can see, one more time the international comunity calls both nations argentina and the u.b k. to resume the negotiation with the purpose of finding a peaceful solution for this conflict, and the u. k. conditons it. Beside, none resolution is asking the u. k. to transfer the sovereignty to argentina, all the resolutions only call to resume the negotiations, i know that you like to buy the pathetic argument which holds that for argentina the only one outcome is that the islands are only under our sovereignty, that's a distortion of the reality, and a pathetic excuse to reject the conversations with my country respecting the negotiations.
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 03:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0This were the words of C. F. K before the u. n:
Argentina is not asking to comply with the resolutions, under the recognizement of the sovereignty, it's just asking to comply with some of the 10 resolutions of the u. n.
As you can see, cristina is not asking the u. k to transfer the sovereignty of the islands to argentina, she is just asking the resume the negotiations.
On the othe hand, chancellour timerman in hes statement before the decolonization committee said that argentina has always manifested that it's disposed to renew the safeguards and the guarantees that had been negotiated with the u. k. before 1982.
Our constitution can say whatever about our claim, if the resolutions only call the two nations to negotiate, like us or not we will have to cede in some apects of our pretentions.
If none of the two nations proposes to take the question to the i. c. j, i think it's because actually both are not so sure that their cases are going to triunf.
Meantime you can keep on thinking what you want respecting what would be the outcome for my country, the reality doesen't coincid with you.
Th solution to the conflict can't depend only on the wishes of the islanders, as long as you dont understand it, dont complain if we have more problems in the future.
(130) Tim
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 04:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Excuse my frankness Mr.Tim but…………… I don’t “Think” that when in England you mingle with the “average proletarians”……….
I agree with you on the rest…….
Things are slowly changing though……..
(126) - W - Addendum -
Just talk to the average Welshpatagonian and they know everything about their history ........
You're right - being Welsh, they would!
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 05:16 pm - Link - Report abuse 0;-)
Don’t you just love it,
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 05:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0When an educated, indoctrinated professor,
Tells you that the whole world is wrong,
Except him, because only he knows best,
The list once again shows Argentineans as indoctrinates, rather than educates,
For according to the professor, out of all the countries in the world, only Argentina knows its own past and history,
Therefore implying that the world tells lies, and Argentina
And only Argentina tells the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth,
Thank goodness we know it as a fantasy,, can you imagine what if ???
,
Just which Average do you think Think (#126) is talking about?
Oct 02nd, 2011 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Average age?
Average beauty?
Average number of legs?
Average IQ?
Average education?
Average salary?
Mean?
Mode?
Median?
Standard Error?
Standard Deviation?
Just which side of his Average do you think Think inhabits, if he cannot be bothered to effectively define his terms and parameters?
132 Think (#) Again correct in your appraisal!!!
Oct 03rd, 2011 - 04:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0es increible... parece que la guerra hubiera sido ayer mismo.... ¡ termino hace casi treinta años...!!!! por favor !!!!
Oct 03rd, 2011 - 05:42 pm - Link - Report abuse 0There already is a peacful solution. The islands are British, the rest of the world doesn't care about this issue or Argentina's claims, there is nothing Argentina can do about it, and no wars are currently being fought over the Islands.
Oct 04th, 2011 - 12:44 am - Link - Report abuse 0See, peaceful solution.
Ok, this weeks fun and games is up and running at the UN.
Oct 04th, 2011 - 01:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0Usual cr*p from Argentina. Trying to twist the Charter's words to suit its spurious claim. No change there then !
http://falklandsnews.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/self-determination-for-all-peoples-fourth-committee/
Im waiting for the probritish MP version to laugh a little how they mix adulterate and indoctrinate facts.
Oct 04th, 2011 - 02:23 am - Link - Report abuse 0same brit spurious crap over and over again
come on........
That's easy Mad'un - we say the same thing every time -
Oct 04th, 2011 - 02:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0“ Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, the representative of the UK said her country had no doubt regarding the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. There could be no negotiations on that sovereignty if the population of the Islands did not so wish. The democratically elected representatives of that population had made clear to the Special Committee their wishes and their claim to the right to self-determination. They confirmed that they were the only residents of the islands, which had never had an indigenous population, and affirmed their rights to exploit the resources of their islands
for their own benefit...”
http://lordton1955.wordpress.com/
With all the arguments to and throw on here, and anti UN from many argentine bloggers
Oct 04th, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Rightly or wrongly, perhaps thinking that, Unasur and or [ OAS] is by far better.
From that point of view, what then is stopping the South American countries?
Withdrawing from the UN Organisation, and using the combined resources of UNASUR an the [OAS]
To form their own South American united nations, i.e, you look after your side of the world, and the South Americans will look after hers.
You could then have something like, [SAUN] South American United Nations,
As you seem to detest the UN and its rules or resolutions, Why not form your own. Just a thought
As for the Falklands this is really becoming very childish of Argentina, to the government its just a game, encouraging the masses, to expect something you have no intention of delivering unless you fight for them,
But as you are a nation of peace and non violent, you seem, bent on a re-action from the UK government, can you not see, [you can’t]
That by pushing the British, sooner or later, you may well push them into a corner with no alternative to either,
Bow down to Argentina, and hand you the Falklands on a plate, skulk back to the UK with its tail between its legs, and suffer the humiliation for decades to come, with the almost certain defeat of the government, with charges of traitor or cowardice hanging over there heads,
Or retailiat in such a violent way, as to end this problem once and for all, destroying Argentina, and a possible wider world conflict in to the bargain,
No one wants bloodshed and war, but for the simple sake of argentine stupidity,
The options are becoming very limited by the day, it seems,
Sadly I think that Argentina will get more that it bargained for, and definitely not what it expected,
And the final result, will still be the fact, that unless ww3 erupted, the result would be that the Falklands will still be British, lots of bodies, and the break up of argentine,
On the other hand, as its
REDHOYT and all the rest of the people in this forum.
Oct 04th, 2011 - 07:45 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Read my comment 131, there you have the answer to all your comments, i want to know your opinions.
as i was saying, [as its only an opinion]
Oct 04th, 2011 - 08:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0mmmm
Axel
Oct 04th, 2011 - 11:24 pm - Link - Report abuse 01. Yes, another year = another request for talks. same old stuff. Means nothingh.
2. The only people in charge of this are the Islanders. If they want negotiations then it'll happen. They do not so there will not be any.
3. Resolutions are merely 'advisory', there is no obligation to comply.
4. 1982 is gone forever. You cannot regain any imagined ground that you had before. And most of it is imagined. The Islanders have been in charge effectively since 1968.
http://falklandstimeline.wordpress.com/1967-1981/
just go to the ICJ
Oct 05th, 2011 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0and let them decide,
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!